# Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am  missing something here?


----------



## Douger (Mar 7, 2011)

Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 7, 2011)

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 7, 2011)

jrk said:


> 1) remove saddam
> done
> 2) stabilize country
> done
> ...



#2?


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Douger said:


> Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
> Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
> Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.




Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing
There are no winners in any war, but the goals that where set where accomplished

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

I'd say that #3 has yet to really be accomplished yet either.  The "new" Iraq is a premature infant that has yet to survive long enough for us to know whether it will have any longevity.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yeah.

It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> to start with the war was Saddam's fault
> he was given 18 months to do the right thing



The Bush administration had just as long to do the right thing, which was to stop lying to the American people and the world about Hussein having WMD and being involved in the 9-11 attacks.  But they did not do so.



> Saddam was a mad man



This is so often said, and is always a pile of bile.  "He was a mad man, he was dangerous."  It's easy to use fearmongering blather to support one's position, but it tends to indicate that one has no real support for their position.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> 
> How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?



I am not sure your numbers are accurate
Iraq Body Count project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say this one is which is 156,000 total deaths
from 03-11
A.Ps is less
WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justify?
This world changed 9-11-2001
Saddam was told weeks later what to do or else
the man was given 18 months


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.

2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.

3.) Thousands of americans killed for something that had nothing to do with defense.

4.) Tens (maybe a hundred) thousand Iraqi's killed.

5.) Installed a government with a heavy islamic religious influence written into it.  I can't believe republicans support this, my guess is they ignore this fact.  

6.) Now americans will likely be taxed the rest of their lives to pay for the soldiers and bureacrats installed permanently in Iraq.

7.) Showed that we're willing to use our military to enforce UN sanctions having nothing to do with the US.

Those are just off the top of my head I'm sure I missed some obvious points.  The only good thing is HOPEFULLY with the WMD lie americans have become less trustworthy of government and are less likely to cheer on another unprovoked war.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Then who do you put in jail?


----------



## Sallow (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...



There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq. It was and will remain one of the great war crimes of the twenty first century.


----------



## Douger (Mar 7, 2011)

Yeah Just like it was necessary to slaughter 5000 Panamanians to get 1 zit faced X-CIA asset and make a bloodbath out of Nicaragua so United Fruit wouldn't have to pay higher wages to it's slaves.
Honduras is lucky your boys went and got Zelaya instead of taking them FfeeDumb and DemoNcracy ( bomb into mud age).
Face it murkin. Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
*O*peration
*I*raqi
*L*iberation.

That and to get some heavy bases near your owners " country" IsNtReal.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Who?

No US President has been jailed after leaving office (Although Conservatives tried to break that protocol with President Clinton over nonsense)..

Do I think that President Bush and the Vice President Cheney should be put into jail for this? Sure..but it would not be practical and would violate a great many unwritten rules.

So what should happen? An honest investigation as to what exactly happened..and why..then legislation that explicitly limits the use of force. Personally, I don't want to see the President's power to use force diminished..but he or she should not be able to commit troops to a country and not have a rational reason to do so. And it should be a crime to lie to the people..followed by impeachment and removal from office.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...


What role did Saddam play in the events of 9/11/2001?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I have no problem putting Bush and Cheney in jail over this, but we also need to throw all the Democrats in Congress at the time in jail as well. 

Personally I think a better solution would be to take a large portion of the trust funds of the slimeballs who voted for it and have those given to the widows and kids of dead parents who died for a lie.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
> 
> 2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.
> 
> ...


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

Yawn... and the response by whackos going back to the same tired bullshit "Bush = war criminal" nonsense


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Yawn... and the response by whackos going back to the same tired bullshit "Bush = war criminal" nonsense



And here we go with the same tired bullshit of someone who calls themselves conservative going out of their way to defend a big spending big government liberal like Bush.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Yawn... and the response by whackos going back to the same tired bullshit "Bush = war criminal" nonsense


*Supreme War Criminal*

"But the major and crucial point overlooked is the judgment of Nuremberg, declaring that *aggression is the supreme international crime *differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.' *All of the 'accumulated evil.'* 

"Also overlooked are the stern words of the US Chief Counsel Justice Jackson: 'If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes *whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them*, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us... We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which *history will judge us tomorrow*. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.'" 

Q/A on the Iraq War...


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn... and the response by whackos going back to the same tired bullshit "Bush = war criminal" nonsense
> ...



Funny... I don't defend Bush's economic policies, nor many other things he did... what I did defend against was this repeatedly tired bullshit by left wing nutjobs about Bush being a war criminal

But nice try


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 7, 2011)

Lets see?

1. We diverted focus away from the war on terrorism
2. We invaded a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat
3. We dedicated too few troops to control the country after the invasion
4. We engaged in torture
5. We ended up with 4000 American dead and close to 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Mar 7, 2011)

> Funny... I don't defend Bush's economic policies, nor many other things he did... what I did defend against was this repeatedly tired bullshit by left wing nutjobs about Bush being a war criminal
> 
> But nice try



Not just him, but his whole administration and all of his corporate buddies that colluded w/ this administration & profited handsomely from this debacle.  Well... then again, that is THE ONLY REASON we invaded in the first place anyway, so I guess he can keep his "mi$$ion accomplished" banner after all.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Funny... I don't defend Bush's economic policies, nor many other things he did... what I did defend against was this repeatedly tired bullshit by left wing nutjobs about Bush being a war criminal
> >
> > But nice try
> 
> ...



Please show collusion and proof positive evidence of this collusion and criminal activity

Otherwise... shut the fuck up


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Bush's economic policies are what make him a "left wing nutjob"

Continue the desperate defense and then choking while you try to spit out that you're a conservative.

You're a bleeding heart liberal who thinks the Iraq War was a step towards world peace.  Insanity.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Funny... never called Bush a "left wing nutjob"... but nice attempt to try and twist words around.. AGAIN

Fuck off.. you're feeble minded and inept wordplay tricks are not going to fly


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
> 
> 2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.
> 
> ...



1) How much damage has terrorism done to our economy? And do not claim Saddam had nothing to do with nothing. we will never know how much, how longand whom profited from it
2) why would you say that?
3) Thats an opinion
4) Saddam killed those people
5) Thats the will of the Iraqi people
6) Iraqi war/Failed stimulus, same cost. That does not include many un-knowns that the Iraqi war may of off-set
7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2011)

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. 

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. 
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I know, I'm the one who called him that, and you desperately run to his defense.

The reasoning I hear for the Iraq War in 2011 is that we did it to enforce UN sanctions and to save the Iraqi people from an evil dictator.

Every single aspect of that reasoning is liberal, every single one.  If you can think of a different version of reasoning I'd love to hear and hear how you twist that into being conservative.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 7, 2011)

> 7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN



Thats odd.....I thought we invaded because Saddam violated the UN resolution?


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Lets see?
> 
> 1. We diverted focus away from the war on terrorism
> 2. We invaded a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat
> ...



1) Many of bin-ladens top chiefs where killed in Iraq
2) how does any-one know that? Saddam was told what to do after 1991 and he ignored it . how does anyone know what was shipped out of Iraq from 9-01-3-03? and to add there was numerous WMDs found (over 500) Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
3) I agree
4) No we did not, a handful of drunks did and they went to prison for it
5) No Saddam did, that violence had 18 months to be prevented


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > 1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
> ...



1.) So your defense of the war is we don't know what Saddam had to do with terrorism, I would think we'd want to know that before going to war...........
2.) Congress has to give authorization to go to war, aka another unconstitutional war.
3.) What were we defending ourselves from?  An Iraqi Army invasion? Lol
4.) He killed his people but ones killed by the Iraq War.
5.) The people didn't write up the Constitution, puppet bureacrats supported by the US did.
6.) I'd love to hear the costs the Iraq War offset, this should be fun.
7.) If it weren't for us being a part of the UN, we would've never enforced their sanctions.  We went to war because they broke UN sanctions, not US sanctions.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




None of you can explain to me why any-one should go to jail for any of this
for what?
defending this country?
Saddam was told for 18 months to do or else
after 9-11 what was we suppose to do?

Saddam Hussein ignored us 
August 2001. fine
September 2001, no more


----------



## shintao (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



03/07/11 AP: PTSD death sends family on search for answers 
Senior Airman Anthony "Tony" Mena managed to dodge bullets, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs during two tours in Iraq.Five months after being medically discharged, the former member of Kirtland Air Force Base's 377th Security Forces Squadron died in his sleep  the result of a lethal mix of nine prescribed medications, including antidepressants, pain killers, tranquilizers and muscle relaxers.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see?
> ...



Iraq was one of the largest strategic blunders in US History. Poor intelligence, poor execution, no valid rationale for invading. While we pulled needed forces out of Afghanistan, we needlessly killed 4000 Americans in an unnecessary conflict


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Unsubstantiated and subjective... typical for you and your ilk...


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




History will pass its verdict on Mr Bush. Any way you spin it will not look too good


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am not the one spinning... Mr. "unnecessary", Mr. "poor", Mr. "blunder"....

Any way YOU spin it, it is inherently not good... but that is because of your severe hyper-partisanship and extremist stance, which you refuse to change


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> > 7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN
> 
> 
> 
> Thats odd.....I thought we invaded because Saddam violated the UN resolution?



What's odd is that the reason for attacking and occupying Iraq continue to change.


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 7, 2011)

The first problem is Saddam did nothing that 25 other dictators don't do now.  Since when are we allowed to determine who runs what country by force because it suits us.  4500 Americans dead doesn't mean anything to you, 50,000 injured, and 100,000 Iraqi's dead because of what WE WANTED.

Saddam did nothing more to start this war than N. Korea has done for 50 years.  
And where do you think the results of a crime determines if your a good guy or not.  The only right we had to invade Iraq was because we could.

You would think that A guy who rapes a woman is a hero because they find out that the woman was wanted for murder.  The guy is still a Rapist.


----------



## jgarden (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


*Even if it were true, those were never the original reasons that the Bush Administration used to justify its invasion into Iraq.  

After it became painfully obvious that no WMD would be found, the Republican "spinmasters" had to invent reasons for the Administration to "save face!"

In business its called "bait and switch!"*


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Mar 7, 2011)

For Dave, who won't pull his head out of the corporatists' asses long enough to learn the truth:

Billions Wasted In Iraq? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers | World | AlterNet
War profiteering - SourceWatch


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 7, 2011)

War for PROFIT is a Conservative platform item isn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yes.

It also spawned a dozen other nations to seek free, republican rule.  Egypt, Tunisia, Libya.....


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 7, 2011)

OH MY GOD, you people are unreal.  You can take credit for anything and place blame just by thinking it up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Yeah.
> 
> It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.



Free elections make the baby Allah cry. (Not to mention certain feral baboons!)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

Douger said:


> Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
> *O*peration
> *I*raqi
> *L*iberation.



So we must have gotten lots of oil from Iraq, brite boi.

How much, exactly have we imported (Stolen, if you prefer) from post Sadam Iraq?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I have no problem putting Bush and Cheney in jail over this, but we also need to throw all the Democrats in Congress at the time in jail as well.



What would the charge against Bush or Cheney be? Specifically, using US criminal justice code? The exact law?

See, Sallow is a stupid fuck - he spews shit to smear the opposition and bolster his shameful party.

But others, who are not as shallow as Sallow, should endeavor to actually THINK the problem through. 

The mind of Sallow is only capable of "Democrat good - HATE REPUBLICAN."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Yawn... and the response by whackos going back to the same tired bullshit "Bush = war criminal" nonsense



If it distracts people from noticing what a complete fuckup Obama is, then they're going to toss it out...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem putting Bush and Cheney in jail over this, but we also need to throw all the Democrats in Congress at the time in jail as well.
> ...



This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

Being one of the rare americans who takes the Constitution seriously I know I sound like a loon, but you either approve of the Iraq War and the other unconstitutional wars or you take the Constitution seriously and want it abided by.

There's no in between.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Principles of the Just War
> 
> A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
> 
> ...



I am not sure after 9-11 your points where not valid
That can be debated. It is a matter of opinion that was close to 80% in support in 2002
Saddam brought this wrath on by his self


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
> ...



You know what does not make sense to me?
you improve the supply the price goes down
the price goes down, profit goes down

What kind of idiot would believe that?


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Not all military actions are wars... we have not had a true war since WWII.... And we are allowed to have military actions, without declarations of war... congress DID approve this military action known as the Iraq conflict, and we were justified in continuing hostilities after the terms of cease fire were violated (as they were NUMEROUS times over the years)


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Really?
this is your OPINION
And mine without the name calling follows


Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism: Iraq and Beyond
Published on October 2, 2002 by Jack Spencer BACKGROUNDER #1600
Print PDF
Download PDF
SHARE
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority. Congress must now make its voice heard on a key issue of national security and bring to a vote support for President George W. Bush's strategy for pursuing the war on terrorism in the way that he, as commander in chief, deems necessary.
As the nature of the threats to the United States changes, so must the nation's approach to its defense. To fulfill his constitutional responsibility, the President must have the flexibility to address these threats as they emerge; and, given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nations hostile to America, in an increasing number of cases, this may require applying military power before the United States or its interests are struck. In situations where the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that behavioral trends, capability, and motives all point to imminent threat, it may be necessary for the President to attack preemptively.
While there has been little argument over the use of armed force in Afghanistan to retaliate against an act of aggression, preemptive action is also clearly justifiable because the following principles apply:
PRINCIPLE #1: The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The most basic expression of a nation's sovereignty is action taken in self-defense. Traditional international law recognizes that right,1 and the United Nations Charter is wholly consistent with it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
PRINCIPLE #2: The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. 2 The right to self-defense incorporates the principle of anticipatory self-defense, which is particularly salient in the war on terrorism. The reality of international life in the 21st century is that nations or organizations that wish to challenge America or Western powers increasingly are seeking weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political objectives. The only effective response may be to destroy those capabilities before they are used. The tenet of traditional, customary international law that allows for this preventive or preemptive action is "anticipatory self-defense."
An oft-cited incident that validates the practice of anticipatory self-defense as part of international law occurred in 1837. That year, British forces crossed into American territory to destroy a Canadian ship, anticipating that the ship would be used to support an anti-British insurrection. The British government claimed its actions were necessary for self-defense, and the United States accepted that explanation.3
While there is debate as to whether or not this principle of international law survived the adoption of the U.N. Charter, the fact is that neither the charter nor the actions of member states since the charter came into force outlaw the principle.4 Israel has invoked the right of anticipatory self-defense numerous times throughout its history, including incidents in 1956 when it preemptively struck Egypt and in 1967 when it struck Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as those nations were preparing an attack.
The United States has also asserted its right to anticipatory self-defense. A classic example occurred in 1962 when President John Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba--a clear act of aggression--during the Cuban missile crisis. Although no shots had been fired, President Kennedy's preemptive action was imperative for the protection of American security. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked this right at least twice: first, in 1983, when he ordered an invasion of Grenada to protect U.S. nationals from potential harm, and again in 1986, when he ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya.
When any nation that is overtly hostile to America or its allies is developing weapons of mass destruction, has ties to international terrorist, and intelligence data give reason to believe that there is an intent to attack, the threshold of the United States' right to invoke a response based on anticipatory self-defense has clearly been passed.
PRINCIPLE #3: The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization veto power over U.S. actions that would otherwise be lawful and fully in accord with the Constitution.5
PRINCIPLE # 4: The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense." The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President commander in chief. Since the birth of the nation, this division of power has given rise to tension between the executive and legislative branches of government regarding who can authorize the use of force.6
Debate regarding this matter gave rise to the War Powers Resolution,7 which states that the President can use force to protect the nation without congressional authorization for 60 to 90 days. Many, including every President since this resolution came into force in 1973, have regarded the document as unconstitutional. Most, however, agree that the President has the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization.8 It should be noted that if Congress is truly opposed to any military action authorized by the President, it has the power to defund that mission, making it impossible to carry out.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.



{Summary

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.  The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions}

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq

Next?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



"Section Eight gives to the Congress certain broad enumerated powers. Among these are the power to lay and collect taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce; to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court; to establish uniform naturalization and bankruptcy laws; *to declare war*; to "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and provide for their regulation; coin money and regulate the value; administer the postal service; "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors; and various other powers. The section also gives to Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I underlined the important parts of what you cut and pasted and included section 8 of the US Constitution.

The stuff you sent over could be twisted and lawyered into a short term attack of Iraq being acceptable, not a war.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



My friend at anytime congress could have DE funded it
Unlike the way BHO has these slush funds for the UAW, GM, Chrysler and GMAC. The war needed funding from congress


----------



## traveler52 (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1.  An Illegal and Un-Constituional War.

2.  Hundreds of Thousands Innocent Iraqi Civilians Killed.

3.  Thousands of U.S. Military Personnel Killed.

4.  Hundreds of U.S. Military Personnel were maimed and then when sent home to recover from their wounds were housed in rooms that rooms black with mold and had to issued mouse traps because of vermin.

5.  Hundreds of U.S. Military Personnel wounded in Iraq, who upon returning Stateside for 
recovery in U.S. Military Hospitals, were charged by those hospitals for meals served to them.

6.  Hundreds of Thousands U.S. Military Personnel forced to "Return To The Sandbox" for multipul tours of duty because of a lack of manpower.  

7.  U.S. Female Military Persoonel have been sexually assaulted, by their male counterparts.

8.  Over Nine Billion U.S. Dollars ($9,000,000,000.00) remains *'Missing and/or Un-Accounted For*" From The Fomer Coalitional Provisional Goverment.

9.  No Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.) were ever found.

10. No Nuclear Weapons Program.

11. No Attempt To Purchase "*Yellow Cake Uranium*" from Niger.

12. The "*Outting*" of an active Non-Offical Cover Ingelligence Office (N.O.C.) of the CIA.  To date the number of people who were killed has not been confirmed, but the CIA does admitt that people have been killed due to the "Outting" of Ms. Valerie Plame-Wilson.

13. Violations of the United States Constitution regarding illegal search and seizure.

14.  Violations of the United States Constitution regarding the use of torture.

15.  The Cost of the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried "Off Books" and funded through "Continuing Resolutions" which added to crippling National Debt.

16.  Financing of the War and its debt by turning the U.S. Economy over the People's Republic of (Communist China).


----------



## signelect (Mar 7, 2011)

We elected them and we are at fault.  Why can't we voters get Washington to listen, it is because for years they have ignored us, told us what is best, lined their pockets at our expense.  I am trying to retire on a very limited income (SS) mostly my fault for not saving more) and will pay the price for the good years when I chose not to get involved.  Now it may be a little late for me but you of a younger generation had better wake up or there will be a very dim future indeed, learning Mandarin may be a good choice for continuing education.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Why is it the debt lie keeps going
Iraqi war and the failed stimulus about the same

as far as it being legal or not?
congress made it legal by funding it, its that fucking simple

people dying? Saddam along with the terrorist that decided to fight killed those people. Saddam had 18 months to do the right thing. After 9-11 there was no more negotiating that did not have consequences


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> You know what does not make sense to me?
> you improve the supply the price goes down
> the price goes down, profit goes down
> 
> What kind of idiot would believe that?



An idiot without a semblance of understanding of market economics.

I have my students study what is called "The Taco Bell Case." 

To summarize, In 1988, Pepsi Cola was about to close the Taco Bell franchise as unprofitable. At the time, Pepsi was charging $0.89 for a regular taco and the same for a regular, bean burrito.

In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.

What happened was nothing short of astounding. Not only did the plan work, but Taco Bell was actually making a profit on the $.29 items. See, there biggest issue was overhead absorption, not food cost. By moving more product, they cut scrap (bad food) to almost nothing and cut overhead from 419% to 60%. Taco Bell then restructured their entire menu at sharply reduced prices and the chain was profitable within a year. Three years later, Pepsi was able to sell the chain (Along with KFC and Pizza Hut) to Yum foods at a huge profit.

The key to being profitable was lowering prices, VOLUME rather than margin was the key.

Price goes down, profit goes up - basic economics.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



At least you're taking a better tactic now, pointing fingers rather than trying to twist an obviously unconstitutional war into being constitutional.

Funding and not funding isn't the same as declaring war.

Personally I don't know why they didn't declare war, the idiots in Congress would've approved of it, but the fact is that they didn't.


----------



## shintao (Mar 7, 2011)

diamonddave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...


*fail!!*


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > You know what does not make sense to me?
> ...



So the reason gas is 3.50 a gallon is because taco bell did this?
Seriously 
I have heard it all now
Try and explain that to me as it relates to oil prices as well as supply 

Iraqi oil was being sold on the black market, and yes that was part of the problem that needed resolve
Do you know what this war was really about?
Look at a map of Iraq and see where it sits in the middle east

Saddam had been told and told and told and told to do the right thing
9-11 comes along and he acted foolishly
he paid for it
his people paid for it as well as 1000s of brave American troops


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.

2. Not stable.  Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011

3.  After all is said and done, when we leave it will still be a miserable shit hole.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was sold as a security threat because of the WMD.  Not to remove Saddam from office.  Not to nation build.  Not to spread a Republic form of governemnt.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

shintao said:


> diamonddave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes... he, and you, fail all the time with such tactics


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 7, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> 
> How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?



Kinda hard not to when they are harboring terrorists in there homes and around there villages.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
> ...



We've averaged between 300 and 400 thousand barrels a day before and after the invasion and occupation.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



I am un sure this was a bad thing nor am I sure it was never part of the reason


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> 1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.



Nope.

UNSCR 1441 isn't a law and has no legal binding on the sovereign nation of the United States of America.

While it distresses you, the USA is NOT a colony of the UN.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> We've averaged between 300 and 400 thousand barrels a day before and after the invasion and occupation.
> 
> Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries



So what you're saying is that we didn't gain so much as a drop? 

Levels are the same? 

Hmm, the oil charge is way off then, spurious and without foundation.

So is KOS stupid, or just lying when they program the drones to bleat the "It's about oil" claim?


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 7, 2011)

> Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
> Operation
> Iraqi
> Liberation.



 If this war was for oil only, then why has the price of oil only gone up since 2003? 

 You fail again, well, at least your ignorance does. 
This war was never about oil. To Bush it was about thumping some tango ass, to the Dems, it was to spend as much money to devalue our currency and collapse the economy. I don;t expect you to understand, you're only a minion.


----------



## grunt11b (Mar 7, 2011)

> 1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.


 Then the Democrats share in that illegal behavior. Bush did not take this nation to war on his own, he could not have done it without the support from the congress and senate, and here is what they thought.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc[/ame]

*
2. Not stable.  Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011*
 Who detonated the bomb that blew the bus up? Us or the terrorists? And if you say our presence brought this about, you are officially a retard because these people have been doing this to each other for about a thousand years. 
 More stable now then it was in 2003. Have you been there? I didn't think so. The US deaths you hear of now are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, pay attention to the news and not to the Bots running the white house and you will see this for yourself.


----------



## shintao (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > You know what does not make sense to me?
> ...



Dear Cheveron, take advice from Taco Bell.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

shintao said:


> Dear Cheveron, take advice from Taco Bell.



Chevron doesn't set gas prices.

Speculators seeking something for nothing manipulate futures markets which cause PPB to act independent of supply and demand. We allow looters to corrupt the market.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> It also spawned a dozen other nations to seek free, republican rule.  Egypt, Tunisia, Libya.....



1)  Please list all such 12 nations.

2)  Please provide evidence that anything having to do with Iraq had anything to do with what has happened in such nations.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.
> ...



The USA is one of the  founding members of the UN.  The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore according to the Joint act that gave the President the deciding power:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Online NewsHour: Text of Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq -- October 11, 2002

So considering the ongoing SCR 1441, not only was the President in breach of international law, but of American law as well.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Need I point out that this was a UN CeaseFire.  It stemmed from a UNSCR to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait.  Within the ceasefire agreement there is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for violating any provision in the ceasefire agreement.  If one side or the other is accused of a violation it was up to the SC to determine what to do about such a violation.

From that same (12th grader) article

Moreover, paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 states the Council's decision "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." That provision makes clear that the Council, not individual states, determines not only whether Iraq has violated Resolution 687 but also whether to take "further steps" for its implementation. The express vesting of this authorization in the Security Council is inconsistent with the view that Resolution 678 continues to allow individual states to decide for themselves whether to use force to implement the cease-fire resolution. 

Despite the language and history of Resolution 687, U.S. and UK officials have asserted since 1991 that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force remains in effect, and on several occasions they have deployed forces against Iraq.[107] They argue that the traditional material breach doctrine is applicable to UN cease-fires and that an Iraqi breach of the cease-fire therefore reactivates Resolution 678. However, even if the resolution survived the cease-fire and can be reignited under traditional armistice law to address material breaches, the question remains: who decides when a material breach reactivates the authorization to use force &#8212; the Security Council or the United States and its coalition partners? The practice since the cease-fire confirms what is central to Resolution 687: that this authority is held by the Security Council alone. Since the Council made the cease-fire with Iraq, it is the party to determine whether Iraq is in breach. Thus, for Council-imposed cease-fires, retaining the material breach doctrine turns out to lead to the same consequences as the Charter rule propounded above: only the Council can decide to resume hostilities.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> The USA is one of the  founding members of the UN.



Irrelevant.

While you may wish it were otherwise, the UN is not a world governing body. 




> The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States.



False.



> Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.



Utterly false.

What if Barack Obama gets tired of this Jan Brewer and signs a treaty with Libya ceding all territory and land in Arizona to Libya and placing all people in Arizona into chattel slavery as property of the Libyan government?

Would that be the "supreme law of the land?"

Why, or why not?



> (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
> 
> (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



Thus authorizing Bush to use force at his discretion.

You can hate Bush, you can rewrite history, but you can't obliterate the past - Edward Murrow is dead and the complete managing of news died with him.

Bummer.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Sorry bubba.... the UN is not the end all be all of world government.... The battling parties made the cease fire.. the UN helped it be drafted up and documented... they have no authority as a sovereign government to tell us how to handle our own battles...

You want some one world government with the fucking corrupt UN calling the shots?? I certainly hope not


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Utterly false.
> 
> What if Barack Obama gets tired of this Jan Brewer and signs a treaty with Libya ceding all territory and land in Arizona to Libya and placing all people in Arizona into chattel slavery as property of the Libyan government?
> 
> ...



You don't seem to know much about the constitution, do you?

Treaties in which the USA is a party *are* binding law under the US constitution.



			
				US Constitution Article 6 said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; *and all Treaties made*, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land



If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding.  The state would no longer be part of the United States.  But you seem to not understand well how treaties come to be under the constitution.  The President can only make a treaty by and with the advise and consent of the Senate.  So his signature alone does not make the treaty valid under the constitution.  It has to be approved by the Senate.  But the US cannot make a treaty that would enslave anyone in the US, because that would be against the constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Sorry bubba.... the UN is not the end all be all of world government.... The battling parties made the cease fire.. the UN helped it be drafted up and documented... they have no authority as a sovereign government to tell us how to handle our own battles...
> 
> You want some one world government with the fucking corrupt UN calling the shots?? I certainly hope not



Hey Dave, No Pathologically Sarah to bash here.....

Anyway, a one world dictatorship is the holy grail of the left. It is what the perpetually strive for.

Blind Boo is spewing leftist doctrine, but is full of hot air. No treaty can supersede the US Constitution, despite his wishes.

Here's why;

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear: "...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

ALL civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution --- but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding.



Nope, this isn't a Stalinist dictatorship but rather a constitutional republic. 

All laws made by congress must be in concert with the United States constitution. Sorry, laws which violate the 5th and 13th amendments cannot take effect, nor can treaties.



> The state would no longer be part of the United States.



Wrong again, no president by fiat, even should he have concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, has the authority to usurp and discard the US Constitution.

If you truly want the one world dictatorship you desire, you're going to have to take up arms and overthrow the republic.


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nope, this isn't a Stalinist dictatorship but rather a constitutional republic.
> 
> All laws made by congress must be in concert with the United States constitution. Sorry, laws which violate the 5th and 13th amendments cannot take effect, nor can treaties.



Congratulations tearing down that straw man.  Nobody said that a treaty can otherwise violate a provision of the constitution.  The question is whether, according to the constitution treaties to which the US is a part are binding law.



> Wrong again, no president by fiat, even should he have concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, has the authority to usurp and discard the US Constitution.



Again, congrats on another straw man.  Nobody is talking about discarding the constitution.  We're talking about whether treaties to which the US is a party are US law.  The constitution says they are.



> If you truly want the one world dictatorship you desire, you're going to have to take up arms and overthrow the republic.



Straw man trifecta!


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

what in gods name are you guys debating about?
The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none


This war has support from congress from the start
and every time they funded it, it was justified (legal)


what are you 2 guys hung up on?


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> what in gods name are you guys debating about?
> The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none



Nobody said the UN has "jurisdiction."  Just that the US has a legal obligation to honor the UN charter, because the charter is a treaty to which the US is a party.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? 

Simple:
Liberals cannot afford to allow any sort of positive impression of GWB seep into the public consciousness.  So, they lie about the success that was the war in Iraq, and they continue to repeat those lies, hoping that they are eventually accepted as the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> The USA is one of the  founding members of the UN.  The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.


So...  
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

 If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The USA is one of the  founding members of the UN.  The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.
> ...



I cannot put into words the level of detail those guys went at it 
I respect it
I ask a simple question, one should have took that to another thread
It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

jrk said:


> 1) remove saddam
> done
> 2) stabilize country
> done
> ...



yes.. The murder ten of thousands of woman and children.... Engaginge in imperialistic nation building...invading sovereign nations... Bankrupting the country financially and morally


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



There is nothing better than defining the mission of a war after it is over.  That way, you always win.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal


Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities. 

:shrug:


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...
> If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?



The UN does not have grounds for such.  The UN, by its nature and build in to its structure, has a specific scope.  Notice how the UN does not pass resolutions that deal things like abortion, murder, etc?  That is not the scope of the UN, or of the UN charter.



> If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?
> 
> If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?



See my comment above.  The right seems to enjoy painting the false picture of the UN as a world legislative body.  But that is not the truth at all.  It is an organization whose members have agreed to certain basic rules of international conduct, for the sake of maintaining global peace and stability.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The USA is one of the  founding members of the UN.  The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.
> ...



No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.  War/Military action is not a domestic issue.  Do you understand the difference?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal
> ...



Hey stupid.......you DO realize that the Taliban (those responsible for 9/11) didn't move into Iraq until AFTER Saddam was removed from power, right?

Why did we go to war with Saddam when Jr. was president?  Simple.........Jr. was looking to try to fix the fuck up that his father did with Desert Storm pt 1.  I served over in the Persian Gulf during that time.

After 9/11, Jr. had an excuse to resume hostilities with Saddam, so he blamed Saddam for helping out the Taliban (he was actually their enemy, not their ally), let OBL (who WAS responsible for 9/11) get away, mainly because Jr. was interested in getting the oil fields.

I wanna know why OBL never got caught under Jr. and why 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he wasn't concerned about OBL.

Me personally?  I'd like to see Cheney, RumsFAILED and Jr. all taken to Geneva, put up on war crimes charges and then put in Spandau for the rest of their miserable lives.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal
> ...



As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN.  In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses that spell out in detail what constitutes a violation and what the consequences of such violations would be were they to happen.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> what in gods name are you guys debating about?
> The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none
> 
> 
> ...



Reasons why the Iraq invasion and occupation was a failure.  It was a strategic blunder that will haunt us for a generation.  Yes the Democrats who voted to give President Bush the deciding power should have resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responisblibity.

The only sucess I see is that our military did a near perfect invasion.  After that everthing became FUBAR.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



lets see what the Google says to that
Bush Says U.S. Will Achieve Objectives in Iraq

IRAQ UPDATE: BUSH ADMINISTRATION PRE-WAR PLANNING


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


While being obsessed with the distraction of taking Saddam Hussein's international oil-contracts from him, *BUSHCO* allowed bin Laden to escape.


I'd say that qualifies as a failure (*i.e.* one more *Dumbya* fuck-up).​


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


The argument I responsed to makes no such distinction.
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



So your telling me that from 10-2001 thru 3-2003 we did not find Bin Ladin because we waited until 17 months after we invaded afhan to invade Iraq?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > So...
> ...


You are dodging the question.


----------



## JRK (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I cannot imagine why anyone would think the Unite nations would have any jurisdiction in the united states 
and
why anyone would
I HAVE GOT IT
DESPERATION


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


No....  the ceasefire was between the states in conflict.  It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question.  It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.



> In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses...


Really?  Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding.  Period.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


I'm sorry...  There's no need for me to further response to such petulance.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Congratulations tearing down that straw man.



Straw man? You're the one claiming that the President with 2/3rds of the Senate can send everyone in Arizona off to be slaves.



> Nobody said that a treaty can otherwise violate a provision of the constitution.



Actually, you did. The scenario I provided violates the 5th and the 13th amendments at the very least, yet you stood up and proudly beamed "Our SUPREME ruler could do that!"



> The question is whether, according to the constitution treaties to which the US is a part are binding law.



What you fail to grasp is that treaties by nature are INFERIOR to  the constitution. Whereas a resolution violates the constitution, it cannot and does not act as law.

FURTHER, which the UN charter was ratified by the Senate, resolution 768 (or whatever) is NOT ratified, is NOT a treaty and has ZERO weight in American jurisprudence. You of the left viewed joining the UN as the establishment of a world government and the dissolution of the sovereignty of these United States - it ain't the case.



> Again, congrats on another straw man.  Nobody is talking about discarding the constitution.



The fuck they're not; that is precisely what you're angling for. You place the UN Charter and the resolutions made by foreign bodies above the US Constitution, effectively rendering it null and void. 



> We're talking about whether treaties to which the US is a party are US law.  The constitution says they are.



As stated, resolutions from the UN are not treaties, even actual treaties cannot violate the US Constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> yes.. The murder ten of thousands of woman and children.... Engaginge in imperialistic nation building...invading sovereign nations... Bankrupting the country financially and morally



So you're claiming that Iraq is a colony of the USA? Or are you just a dumbass spouting words you don't comprehend, such as "imperialism?"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.



Nor do they have the authority to determine the defense posture and actions of the USA.

Empty pockets again, BlindBoo.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
> ...





> *January 2004*
> 
> Pentagon Whistleblower Reveals How
> Iraq War Intel Was Cooked​





JRK said:


> We caused part of this in 1980s
> We should have ended it in 1991
> Saddam was a mad man






​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> I served over in the Persian Gulf during that time.



Were you part of the Republican Guard?


----------



## 8537 (Mar 7, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY



Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later?  It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

8537 said:


> Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later?  It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.



Maybe he didn't change, maybe the hive hadn't released the pheromones instructing you to hate him him prior to 2000....


----------



## Charles_Main (Mar 7, 2011)

It was a failure because we took all this heat for going to war to steal oil, then like a bunch of dumb fucks we forgot to steal the oil and let others gobble up the contracts


----------



## GWV5903 (Mar 7, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH made them say this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> You are dodging the question.



How have I dodged the question?  You asked if the UN can pass a resolution that would make abortion illegal in the US.  The answer is no, they do not.  By being party to the UN, the US did not cede any jurisdiction for the UN to determine inner American policy.  That is not the scope of the UN charter.  The UN is a body that deals with international relations.

Your question is like asking whether the commerce clause of the US constitution allows the federal government to set tax rates of the state of Alabama.  Just because Alabama is a willing member of the union does not mean that they have ceded jurisdiction over to the federal government to decide inner Alabamian policies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You are dodging the question.
> ...


No, I did not.
I asked that if the UNSC passed such a resolution, would abortion then be illegal?
You did not answer that question.
Well?


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Straw man? You're the one claiming that the President with 2/3rds of the Senate can send everyone in Arizona off to be slaves.



No, I did not.  As a matter of fact I explicitly rejected that notion.  That's why it's a straw man for you to suggest such.



> Actually, you did. The scenario I provided violates the 5th and the 13th amendments at the very least, yet you stood up and proudly beamed "Our SUPREME ruler could do that!"



Again, I did no such thing.  Which is why it is a straw man for you to suggest it.



> What you fail to grasp is that treaties by nature are INFERIOR to  the constitution. Whereas a resolution violates the constitution, it cannot and does not act as law.



Nobody said otherwise.  But, since you've brought it up (and since you did, it is a straw man) now that I'm looking at it, I'm not quite sure that the constitution holds supremacy over treaties.  The constitution states, basically, that US law is the supreme law of the land.  In other words, federal law is supreme to state law, and any state law that violates such is not with standing.  However, the constitution explicitly states that US statutes must be made in pursuance to the constitution.  It does not say the same thing about treaties.  Therefore, there is a reasonable argument to be made that any act of entering into a treaty the US makes, within the methods demanded by the constitution, would thus equally valid and of equal supremacy as the constitution itself.  If this confuses you, think about the UK parliament.  Any act of the Parliament is inherently constitutional in the UK, because acts of Parliament become part of the constitution by their nature.  It's not quite the same thing, but it's similar.

In any event, I am not prepared to say that this is definitely the case.  But from the way the constitution reads it would appear to be so.



> FURTHER, which the UN charter was ratified by the Senate, resolution 768 (or whatever) is NOT ratified, is NOT a treaty and has ZERO weight in American jurisprudence.



The UN charter was ratified by the Senate, thus the US is bound by any legitimate act under the UN charter.



> You of the left viewed joining the UN as the establishment of a world government and the dissolution of the sovereignty of these United States - it ain't the case.



I'm not "of the left."  And it is YOU who seems to equate the UN with some kind of world government.  I'm not here talking about the UN as if it is a legislative body.  I'm talking about the US entering a treaty that agrees to certain behaviors regarding international affairs.



> The fuck they're not; that is precisely what you're angling for. You place the UN Charter and the resolutions made by foreign bodies above the US Constitution, effectively rendering it null and void.



No, I'm not "angling" for that, or anything else.  Stop reading into the situation.  You keep drawing things forth that I'm not saying, which is what makes your comments straw men.  You're almost sounding like a lunatic conspiracy theorist.



> As stated, resolutions from the UN are not treaties, even actual treaties cannot violate the US Constitution.



Forget resolutions for a moment because it's really not the issue before us, you just keep pushing it.  The US, by treaty, has agreed not to invade any member state of the UN without the consent of the Security Council.  That is it.  The US is bound to honor that treaty by the US constitution.  That is why invading Iraq was unconstitutional.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> No, I did not.  As a matter of fact I explicitly rejected that notion.  That's why it's a straw man for you to suggest such.



Ah, my mistake. It must have been some other gekaap that made the INCREDIBLY fucking stupid statement of;



> If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding. The state would no longer be part of the United States



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-6.html#post3397865

We can all see that you sure didn't say it.....



> Again, I did no such thing.  Which is why it is a straw man for you to suggest it.



It was that OTHER gekaap again, damn him...



> Nobody said otherwise.  But, since you've brought it up (and since you did, it is a straw man) now that I'm looking at it, I'm not quite sure that the constitution holds supremacy over treaties.



Of course you don't, but then you don't grasp the fact that this is a sovereign nation not subject to the laws of foreign lands.

Your lack of comprehension has no effect on the facts, though.



> The constitution states, basically, that US law is the supreme law of the land.  In other words, federal law is supreme to state law, and any state law that violates such is not with standing.  However, the constitution explicitly states that US statutes must be made in pursuance to the constitution.  It does not say the same thing about treaties.



I understand that you're attempting to be clever, but you're not pulling it off.

If ratified treaties have the weight of law, then they are subject to the same judicial review as other laws.



> Therefore, there is a reasonable argument to be made that any act of entering into a treaty the US makes, within the methods demanded by the constitution, would thus equally valid and of equal supremacy as the constitution itself.



That is not a "reasonable" argument, but rather an absurdity. As I posted earlier, the act of the President and Senate simply signing such law would be a violation of their oaths of office and would render the treaty null on it's face.



> The UN charter was ratified by the Senate, thus the US is bound by any legitimate act under the UN charter.



False.

Though it distresses you, we did not cede sovereignty to a world body in said ratification.



> I'm not "of the left."  And it is YOU who seems to equate the UN with some kind of world government.  I'm not here talking about the UN as if it is a legislative body.



Yet your claim is that resolutions by the UN have the weight of US law.



> I'm talking about the US entering a treaty that agrees to certain behaviors regarding international affairs.



Only that explicitly defined in the treaty at the time of ratification has any bearing. Acts and resolutions added later are not binding.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Gad dammit - how did he become so f'ing dumb just 6 short years later?  It's almost like he forgot to read his own playbook.
> ...



No, I hated that bastard long before 1994.

It just so happens that he was smarter in 1994 than in 2000.


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

Good job, cherry picking.  How about you quote the next sentence there?

It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments.  You're just repeating your same BS, and leaving it completely unsubstantiated, and ignoring the evidence that is right there in the US constitution, and trying to twist the constitution to fit a conclusion that you want, and twist it away a conclusion you want to avoid, all while trying to misrepresent what I am saying in the first place.  May as well be in the middle of an I Love Lucy episode or an Abbott and Costello skit.  Who's on first?  Exactly.

To cut to the important parts:

1)  I'm still waiting for that list of 12 nations, and the evidence that supports that anything happening there is due to our invasion of Iraq.

2)  There's no room for doubt that the US entered into a treaty to not invade a member state of the UN without the prior consent of the Security Council.


----------



## ekrem (Mar 7, 2011)

Iraq War was a success.
In 2012 a Republican POTUS will come to power, and all the Arab people will again put an US-backed Arab dictator into power and all those people will again welcome you with flowers.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 7, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...


*Are you using "terrorist" in a literal or propagandistic sense?*

"US Army manual on countering terrorism defines it as 'the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.'" 

Those Iraqis were defending *their homes and villages* from hired killers participating in a War of aggression thousands of miles from their homeland.

How do you justify killing thousands of civilians thousands of miles from your homeland in order to obtain goals that were political or ideological in nature?

Money?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM


Over four-thousand American troops killed, thousands more maimed and/or disfigured, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed or maimed, including women and children, and more than a trillion dollars wasted.  Why?  

Saddam Hussein had been rendered politically and militarily impotent by Desert Storm and years of suppressive bombing.  There was absolutely no good reason for invading his country.  Our action was in fact shameful and as damaging to our reputation as was Hitler's brutal invasion of Poland.  



> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY


You think Iraq is stable?  If we left there it would be a matter of weeks before a civil war erupts and a radical regime emerges.  And there are millions of Iraqis who have good cause to despise America and Americans.  The fact is we are stuck in Iraq indefinitely at enormous cost to the American taxpayer and we are looking more and more like ancient Rome.



> 3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
> DONE
> 
> Am  missing something here?


Yes.  The real reason for your synthetic enthusiasm, which I suspect is the real beneficiary of the destruction of Iraq -- Israel.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 7, 2011)

When you start using WAR as a political policy option, as opposed to a last resort when all else has failed and your vital interests depend on it,

then your war is a failure no matter what the outcome.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

gekaap said:


> It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments.


Speaking of which...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-8.html#post3398740


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 7, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> When you start using WAR as a political policy option, as opposed to a last resort when all else has failed and your vital interests depend on it,
> then your war is a failure no matter what the outcome.


This is amazingly asinine, even from you.


----------



## gekaap (Mar 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Speaking of which...
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-8.html#post3398740



I've answered multiple times now.  You just keep ignoring it and saying I haven't answered.  Open your eyes and read.


----------



## Agit8r (Mar 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Bankrupt USA?
DONE


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

Agit8r said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



The stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq did
the deficit for 2009 is 500 billion more than the war was
Lets not forget
these troops would have had to have been somewhere, i am giving you numbers that is 100% iraqi war numbers
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
this information is from the CBO


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




I don't believe you can actually equate the two.

Providing jobs and tax breaks to Americans vs invading and occupying a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat

The Stimulus didn't kill 4000 Americans either


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 8, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



You're right... you cannot equate the 2.... national defense is a charge of the federal government... stimulus nor entitlements nor bailouts are not  charges of the federal government, and should never have been done regardless of if it were Bush or Obama or whomever


----------



## Dr.Drock (Mar 8, 2011)

Rightwinger and DiamondDave arguing what's the best way to bankrupt our country.  Unconstitutional wars or crazy out of control spending packages.

As an independent it'd be funny watching partisan voters make excuses for their pathetic bureacrats if their hero's actions weren't destroying our country.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 8, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Good job, cherry picking.  How about you quote the next sentence there?



It's called "debate," the art of addressing salient points.



> It's clear that you aren't actually addressing the merit of my comments.



I'm eviscerating your comments due to their lack of merit.



> You're just repeating your same BS,



If it is BS, then you should have short work in refuting it. 




> and leaving it completely unsubstantiated, and ignoring the evidence that is right there in the US constitution,



Your failure to grasp the constitution is not germane to the discussion. 

There is a plethora of precedent demonstrating the absurdity of your claims, starting with Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1. 

The SCOTUS held;

    "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

    "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

    "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights  let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition  to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliots Debates 1836 ed.  pgs 500-519).

    "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined." 



> and trying to twist the constitution to fit a conclusion that you want, and twist it away a conclusion you want to avoid, all while trying to misrepresent what I am saying in the first place.



I'm not "twisting" anything, nor do I have need to do so. Your position is not just wrong, but simply ignorant.


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Rightwinger and DiamondDave arguing what's the best way to bankrupt our country.  Unconstitutional wars or crazy out of control spending packages.
> 
> As an independent it'd be funny watching partisan voters make excuses for their pathetic bureacrats if their hero's actions weren't destroying our country.



There is nothing funny about any of this, especially your contention the wars are un constitutional

It is embarrassing to me that anyone would reach to that level of desperation.

exactly what part of these wars where un constitutional? 

The funding that congress did?
Which vote in congress was un constitutional?
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Perhaps you need to study the history of the UN, it's Charter, and it's purpose.


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

There is much to answer
1) 4000 troops died for no other reason than the 3000+ died on 9-11. without terror, no one dies

2) Who claimed Saddam in these threads had anything to do with 9-11? Saddam was removed for reasons that did include 9-11 back then. Saddam had 18 months to prevent all of this.
MEDIA IGNORES BUSH ADMISSION THAT SADDAM NOT INVOLVED IN SEPT. 11
sept 203 GWB admitted it
Iraq: 'We'll ignore any UN resolution' | Mail Online
speaks for its self
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
speaks for its self
Answers.com - Did George Bush lie about the WMDs in Iraq
speaks for its self


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.   
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended.  In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

" I am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and 6 weeks since the start of Desert Storm, all United States and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. It is up to Iraq whether this suspension on the part of the coalition becomes a permanent cease-fire.

Coalition political and military terms for a formal cease-fire include the following requirements:

Iraq must release immediately all coalition prisoners of war, third country nationals, and the remains of all who have fallen. Iraq must release all Kuwaiti detainees. Iraq also must inform Kuwaiti authorities of the location and nature of all land and sea mines. Iraq must comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes a rescinding of Iraq's August decision to annex Kuwait and acceptance in principle of Iraq's responsibility to pay compensation for the loss, damage, and injury its aggression has caused.

The coalition calls upon the Iraqi Government to designate military commanders to meet within 48 hours with their coalition counterparts at a place in the theater of operations to be specified to arrange for military aspects of the cease-fire. Further, I have asked Secretary of State Baker to request that the United Nations Security Council meet to formulate the necessary arrangements for this war to be ended.

This suspension of offensive combat operations is contingent upon Iraq's *not firing upon any coalition forces *and *not launching Scud missiles* against any other country. If Iraq violates these terms, coalition forces will be free to resume military operations."

The terms were solidified in SCR 687 which was accepted by the Security Councel on April 3 1991.  There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement.  The violations you claim make the invasion and occupation justifiable are in that agreement, not the term of the ceasefire order given by President Bush on Feb 27

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



are you the same Guy that keeps quoting the UN as it is some kind of, look in respect to your opinion, I will stop there
Iraq has 1000 chances to do the right thing
after 9-11 they knew better


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No please go on because I don't believe you respect anyone's opinion you suspect of being an anti-war liberal.  It the UN and it's security councel's resolutions that are under discussion.  Specifically this was an answer to M14 Shooter most recent claim about the cease-fire.

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.  President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

gekaap said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of which...
> ...


No, no you haven't.
All you've done is claim that the UN cannot pass any such prohibition.
This does not address the question I asked.

Re-read the question and then make at least a half-hearted attempt to address it.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Unsubstantiated fantasies as your basis again?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


I see that you didn't actually address what I wrote, and continue to avoid the questions I asked.  Not a surprise.

The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Very good!



> There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement.


The point you miss is that there need not be any such clause.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.


This is, of course, a lie.


> President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.


Prove this.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.
> ...



Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography. 

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade&#65533;.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker." 

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Commondreams.org?


OK, so....   where's the *proof* that GWB had his mind made up [about going to war with Iraq] long before the first bombs were dropped?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.

Then there is the Downing Street memo's

What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to? The Bush Administration had decided to go to war at least one year before doing so and many months before seeking a resolution from Congress. The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law so they tried to create legal justification through manipulation of the United Nations in order to trap Saddam into violating U.N. resolutions

How Much Proof Needed Before the Truth Comes Out? by Kevin B. Zeese

Now say something about lewrockwell.com now


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.


Still waiting for *proof*.



> Then there is the Downing Street memo's


Still waiting for *proof*.



> What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to...



I'll take all of this as your admision you cannot *prove* the assertion.


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I would have hoped that our president and staff along with the military was ready to go to war 12 months prior to invasion
I am going to make this simple
Saddam caused this, no-one else
he-lied
he-lied
he-lied 

9-11 came along and W said no more
leave or else

He did not leave. There was no reason for war, I agree
Saddam Hussein never realized that there would be an event that changed the game he was playing


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 8, 2011)

Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?  

How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?

Wanna talk about the fact that OBL (who caused 9/11) has never been caught?

Nope.....the Iraq war was a horrible failure.


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?
> 
> How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?
> 
> ...



WMDs
except for these 500 hundred DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
WMDs
except for these shipped out and the main stream media ignores
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.S. official: Iraqis told me WMDs sent to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country

OBL? how would you like to be shitting in a cave the rest of your life, he may not be caught yet but son of a bitch his life has to be a living hell

Failure?
your opinion that I would not share with a marine, you have that right and I could care less


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?
> How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?


Sigh.
Neither you nor anyone else can show that GWB willfully made a statement he knew to be false. Thus, neither you nor anyone else can show that GWB lied.



> Wanna talk about the fact that OBL (who caused 9/11) has never been caught?


Straw, man.



> Nope.....the Iraq war was a horrible failure.


Not by any -rational- standard.


----------



## JFK_USA (Mar 8, 2011)

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long...


As I said:
Not by any -rational- standard.


----------



## JRK (Mar 8, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.



false?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country
snopes.com: Former Iraqi General: WMD moved to Syria

failure?
Saddam? gone
Iraq? republic
Terrorist? Gone,  dead, desperate

I do not recall us taking anything in Iraq
nor do I recall keeping anything

you have you're opinion, i just wished it was based on accurate information


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.
> ...



The evidence is there. You can deny it all you want.  Doesn't change the facts that President Bush used the tradegy of 9-11 to drag the country into an unnecessary and illegal war of aggression.


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 8, 2011)

If your "good" intentions lead directly or indirectly to bad actions, isnt that bad planning on your part?
Sure were not all knowing, but if you intended to rid a patient of an illness, then by killing the person in question you might have achieved your goal with good intentions, but bad execution. 
A very blunt example obviously but one action usually have lots of consequences, some bad, some good, and you cant really balance them on a scale and see what comes out ahead.
And even if you meant good, does that negate the bad part of the spectrum?

This is the truth of the story of Iraq, it was someone who thought he was doing good which game him the right to do bad because his real intent was doing good in his own mind.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?
> ...



Left over Weapons from the Iran/Iraq war do not count as the Bush Administration was touting new production facilities.......

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a debacle since the invasion part was over.  Epic Failure.


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 8, 2011)

FactCheck.org: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?


After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, *the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq.* The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG&#8217;s focusA.



and this is when Iraq went from a threat of WMD invasion to Saddam was a bad person and that is why he needed to go.

All I ask is it ok to kill innocent people in order to kill someone who is bad?  Would you allow that if it happened in America?


----------



## mnbasketball (Mar 8, 2011)

If we had told Saddam that hey guy were willing to buy you out, were going to give you 200,000,000,000.00  two hundred billion and we will allow you to move to any place you want with your families and friends if you want, do you think they might have said OK?


----------



## MikeK (Mar 8, 2011)

This issue will be evaluated by two distinctly different mentalities; those who are willing to discern the obvious and those who for one reason or other are compliant stooges of the emerging corporatocracy.  Trying to convince those in the latter category that George W. Bush was predisposed to invading Iraq is a waste of time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


I asked for proof.  You have failed to deliver.
What do you call people who believe things that cannot be proven?



> Doesn't change the facts that President Bush used the tradegy of 9-11 to drag the country into an unnecessary and illegal war of aggression.


Never mind that you cannot show these things to be facts.


----------



## idb (Mar 8, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.
> ...



Look up an organisation called PNAC (Project for the New American Century).
Then look at how many of them were in the Bush administration.
PNAC urged the Clinton administration to oust Hussein as far back as January 1998.
Bush was surrounded by these guys (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 8, 2011)

idb said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Old news.
Still waiting for *proof*.


----------



## JRK (Mar 9, 2011)

People have the right to dis-agree with the war. It is my assertion that no-one has shown me yet that the venue did not accomplish its goal
No troops needed to die
No Iraqi civilians needed to die

In Sept of 2001 GWB made it clear to Saddam what was coming
Saddam had ever chance to stop that war, 18 months
people forget the images of people at work deciding whether to jump to there death or burn to death. 9-11-2001

Did Saddam have anything to do with it?
Did it matter?
where we sure?


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 9, 2011)

*Did the War Crimes Act of 1996 have anything to do with it?*

"The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law defines a war crime to include a 'grave breach of the Geneva Conventions', specifically noting that 'grave breach' should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. 

"The definition of 'grave breach' in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: '... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, *torture or inhuman treatment*, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.'

"The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. 

"The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. 

"*The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims*."

*Did Hussein Kamel have anything to do with it?*

"In fact Cheney, as well as Tenet, knew very well that Cheney&#8217;s assertions were lies.

"How? *Saddam&#8217;s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel*, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when *he defected in mid-1995 that all (that&#8217;s right, all) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991*.

"*And in mid-2002*, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing."

No WMD.
No links to 911.
Billions of $ in War Profits for Wall Street.

Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraq War ISN'T a war crime in progress?


----------



## JRK (Mar 9, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



GWB and I do not dispute that after 18 months of time to remove/bury etc... any of these items, none where "found" other than those he was suppose to have destroyed, see thats the whole problem with your side of this
Old? yes
Un Able to be used in the state they where in? yes
But there was suppose to be gone also

And I guess those links to people confirming in the 18 months Saddam had to move those items, mean nothing to you


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 9, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> "In fact Cheney, as well as Tenet, knew very well that Cheney&#8217;s assertions were lies.
> 
> "How? *Saddam&#8217;s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel*, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when *he defected in mid-1995 that all (that&#8217;s right, all) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991*.


Hmm.  
Explain Bill Clinton's statements justifying us going to war with Iraq in December 1998:
Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - CNN



> "*And in mid-2002*, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing."


You DO know that being aware of two people stating something contrary to your claim does not in any way necessarily mean that you know your statement to that effect is a lie, especially when you have information to the contrary. 
Right?



> Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraq War ISN'T a war crime in progress?


Simple:  Its not.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 9, 2011)

*It is*

"Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled *'Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality*', might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a *Nuremberg-like trial regarding the War on Terror*."

Wiki - US war crimes


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 9, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *It is*
> 
> "Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled *'Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality*', might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a *Nuremberg-like trial regarding the War on Terror*."
> 
> Wiki - US war crimes




*This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.* Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2011)
	This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (February 2011)

Probably changed by old georgiepordgie himself here... epic fail, georgiepordgie


----------



## gekaap (Mar 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> And I guess those links to people confirming in the 18 months Saddam had to move those items, mean nothing to you



In other words, since we're dealing with a master Satanist, the fact that there is no evidence is proof that it's true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 9, 2011)

gekaap said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > And I guess those links to people confirming in the 18 months Saddam had to move those items, mean nothing to you
> ...


Much like the "proof" for the claim that GWB made the decision to bomb Iraq long before the first bomb ever fell.


----------



## gekaap (Mar 9, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Much like the "proof" for the claim that GWB made the decision to bomb Iraq long before the first bomb ever fell.



Bush said during the campaign that Iraq was a priority for him.  Immediately after 9-11 Bush pushed the intelligence agency to find a link between the attacks and Iraq, even when everyone was saying that there was no link and that Al Qaeda was responsible.  He was clearly obsessed with Iraq.  But that's probably irrelevant here.  We're talking about whether Iraq had any WMDs.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 9, 2011)

gekaap said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Much like the "proof" for the claim that GWB made the decision to bomb Iraq long before the first bomb ever fell.
> ...


Still waiting for the *proof*.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> People have the right to dis-agree with the war. It is my assertion that no-one has shown me yet that the venue did not accomplish its goal
> No troops needed to die
> No Iraqi civilians needed to die
> 
> ...



Yes, using the horrible images of that day to demonize Iraq is exactly how it was done.  Even though Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to jump to their death or be burned to death those poor folks had to make on 9-11.

Yes is matters that while bin Laden was escaping the White House was diverting men and material to the Iraq invasion because by then President Bush didn't really care or think about bin Laden all that much anymore.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 9, 2011)

gekaap said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Much like the "proof" for the claim that GWB made the decision to bomb Iraq long before the first bomb ever fell.
> ...





Unsubstantiated on the "obsessed"
Unsubstantiated on "pushing" for a direct link

And with Iraq continuing their non-compliance for years, it was a priority for Clinton as well (as evidenced by missiles, etc)

You still have not proven your asinine assertion


----------



## JRK (Mar 9, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > People have the right to dis-agree with the war. It is my assertion that no-one has shown me yet that the venue did not accomplish its goal
> ...



For 18 months that debate went on. I respect your opinion, but  dis-agree
The capture of Bin ladin would have made GWB a hero for ever. He knew that

You know we are all sitting, well many of us, Talking about this event after the fact. There is ample proof that the WMDs was spoke of left that country, hell even the UN had some that had been categorized that where never seen again.

Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria

This is a very fair assessment of the events  that did in some form occur


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 9, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *It is*
> ...


*Would you have offered similar apologies for Hitler?*

*"Human Rights Watch has claimed* that the principle of 'command responsibility' could make high-ranking officials within the Bush administration guilty of war crimes allegedly committed during the War on Terror, either with their knowledge or by persons under their control.[29]

"*A presidential memorandum of September 7, 2002* authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, 'necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes.'[30] 

"Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on the prisoners,[31] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.[32]

"Alberto Gonzales and others argued that detainees should be considered 'unlawful combatants' and as such not be protected by the Geneva Conventions in multiple memoranda regarding these perceived legal gray areas."

Do you see any way of finding the truth without Nuremberg-like trials of Bush, Cheney and their assorted war whores like Scooter and Alberto?

Does killing thousands of innocent civilians *for money* even matter to a star-spangled shit stain like you?


----------



## gekaap (Mar 9, 2011)

And we are Godwin'd.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 9, 2011)

*Freeing Iraqi Women*

"The Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), which investigated women's deaths in Basra by visiting city morgues, found that most of the women killed by fundamentalist 'vice squads' in Basra were largely *professionals, activists and PhDs*. 

"The lesson to other women: end any participation in the public, political and social spheres and stay home under male surveillance. 

"By early 2008, only 20 percent of primary and secondary students countrywide were female; the rest were prisoners in their homes. 

"Houzan Mahmoud, who has risked her life to organize a petition against the introduction of Islamic law in Kurdistan, summed up the impact of the war: '*If before there were one dictator persecuting people, now almost everyone is persecuting women*.'"

The Iraq War and Women


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 9, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yawn... more unsubstantiated bullshit and baseless assumptions...

Go play in traffic, georgiepordgie


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 9, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


Would any of these victims count for more in your "mind" if they were American?


----------



## idb (Mar 9, 2011)

Does the world feel like a safer place?
Wasn't that the nub of the reasoning for the war?


----------



## kaz (Mar 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


Because you missed some:

1)  Get the US in a quagmire it can't get out of for years in a country no where near ready for democracy and eventually leave with a government susceptible to falling to chaos or Islamic fundamentalists
Done

2)  Attract more enemies who didn't need to be enemies but we insist on meddling in other people's business
Done

3)  Bail out the Euroweenies who are under a greater threat then we are and allow them to stab us in the back in the process
Done

4)  Continue to keep the US dependent on foreign oil over bad countries because we won't have our government stay out of controlling oil supplies or prices
Done

5)  Continue a policy of trying to police the world by ourselves when the rest of the world either opposes us or just profits off it politically and financially
Done

In the end, meddling in the rest of the world's affairs is an endless, thankless and ultimately fruitless pursuit.  I don't say that in a liberal we're not good enough for the rest of the world kind of way.  I say that in an it's not our problem and I'm tired of taking it all on ourselves kind of way.


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

1) has not occurred
2) That was part of the reason we went there, in fact as i see it as big a reason as any.
3) ????????
4) Thats Obamas fault, He stopped the drilling in this country
5) Removing Saddam was a calculated event that after 9-11 had to happen

Iraq was not about solving other peoples problems
GWB told the world days after 9-11 your with us or not. he told Iraq, N Korea as well as Iran, your on notice 
He told Saddam get out or else
for 18 months


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 10, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



And you jump to yet another tangent with another .org kook site

At least you're consistent


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 10, 2011)

*Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*

"A peer-reviewed study in PLoS Medicine, based on IBC data, provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Feb 2011"

If you dispute these numbers, feel free to share your assessment and methodology.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 10, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*
> 
> "A peer-reviewed study in PLoS Medicine, based on IBC data, provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Feb 2011"
> 
> If you dispute these numbers, feel free to share your assessment and methodology.



*Justify Lying.*

The United States did *NOT* kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*
> ...



Bingo

But winger assholes like georgiepordgie don't care about truth, it's all about shock and awe statements in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of those who don't like to think


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*
> ...


*What legal and moral role* did the US invasion and occupation of Iraq play in creating the insurgency and sectarian violence?

One thinker's opinion:

*"Chomsky*: The excuses also overlook the fact that the insurgency was created by the brutality of the invasion and occupation -- which is, in fact, *one of the most astonishing failures in military history.* 

"The Nazis had less trouble in occupied Europe, and the Russians held their satellites for decades with far less difficulty. It is difficult to think of an analog. A few months after the invasion, I met a highly experienced senior physician with one of the leading relief organizations, who has served in some of the worst parts of the world. 

"He had just returned briefly from Baghdad, where he was trying to reestablish medical facilities, but was unable to because of the incompetence of the CPA. He told me he had never seen such a combination of 'arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence,' referring to the Pentagon civilians in charge. In fact, it was monumental. 

"They even failed to guard the WMD sites that had been under UN supervision, so that they were systematically looted, handing over to someone -- probably jihadis --high-precision equipment suitable for producing missiles and nuclear weapons, dangerous bio-toxins, etc., which had been provided to their friend Saddam by the US, UK and others. 

"The ironies are almost indescribable."

How many innocent human beings has the US Military killed since the end of WWII?

How much profit have speculators earned from the killings?


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

gekaap said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > to start with the war was Saddam's fault
> ...



if GWB lied then so did these people,
Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*
> ...



It makes me sick and why they do it I have no idea


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?  You'd think with all the assets we had there and how we helped the Iraqi people, we should be golden as far as oil goes.  Bush's major mistake was in making the war personal, instead of realizing that we needed to get something out of it.  The right loves to say "Iraq was not about oil", but really that would have been the only valid reason for doing it, national interest.  Getting rid of Saddam should have been the Iraqis' business, not ours.  We already had him bottled up and were engaged in another war.  Proof of failure is in the fact that that other war is still going on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?



How or why do you think that success in Iraq = lower gas prices?
Talk about a non-sequitur.

FYI:
Oil prices are up because of instability in Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and other ME states.
You can try to connect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?
> ...



Iraq was about removing Saddam
And how hi would gas be without Iraq?
2007 it was 17th 2 million barrels a day
NationMaster - Iraqi Energy statistics


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.*
> ...



Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians?  Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Blind Boo if you go thru life and do not understand the tool called "root cause" you will never make it as far as you could
Why is a tire flat?
root cause every time will tell you because there is no air in it

why did any-one die in the Iraqi war?
because in 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait
because 19 insane Saudis used passenger jets as scud missiles in 2001 
when we did not finish him off in 1991 then he was told what to do or else
the or else was not enforced until 2001

Saddam does not invade Kuwait
no war
no UN resolutions
no 9-11, no reason to take out the big stick
no-one dies
Its simple


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?
> ...



The connection is easy.  The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.   If we'd done that, the losses from the other hotspots wouldn't be so damaging.  Another connection is that we spent all that money ousting Saddam and baby sitting a new democracy, when the job should have been done by the Iraqis themselves, like in Egypt, Tunisia and hopefully Libya.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


Except that it wasn't.  It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



So you're saying the United States invasion and occupation could be the 'root cause' of the sectarian violence that killed over 100,000 civilians in Iraq and that the US forces did not actually kill the 100,000?  

It's just like the right to put words into their oponents mouths and then badger them to death with it.  If one thinks the US interventionism in the ME was the motivating factor for the terrorist to attack us on 9-11, to the Pseudo-cons you're blaming America for 9-11.

Thanks go to George H.W. Bush then.  Because when his trading parnter Saddam Hussein asked our embassador to Iraq what was the US position on the ongoing dispute between Kuwait and Iraq, instead of saying we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts and said instead we will defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st state, it seems likely that Saddam never would have tried to conquer Kuwait.

But then you could always go back to pseudo-conservative Hero, Ronnie Raygun, because without Ronnie, Saddam would never have had the technology needed to produce advanced WMD in the first place.

But then why did Ronnie feel like he had to take Iraq off the list of Nations who Support Terrorist? ........(it's never ends).........as to why they dumped all that tea in the harbor?


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Ergo, a failure from the get-go.  Keeping ourselves in oil should have been the ONLY reason for the invasion.  Even the French wouldn't have helped us with our war for independence, if we hadn't shown the the desire and ability to do it for ourselves.  They also didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but for national interest, i.e. weakening Great Britain.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


One can only imagine the mental gyymnastics one has to go through to reach this conclusion.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Hahaha.  Without it they wouldn't have made up  the other reaons!

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals. 

"The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched-and untouchable-because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course-with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq-and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq's most valuable asset-its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves-are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies." 

How And Why US Encouraged Looting In Iraq

But I do agree with you.  The rising price of crude oil today has little to do with the Iraq invasion and occupation's failure, because one of the successes was keeping Iraqis oil business in business.


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What took mental gymnastics was the notion that Saddam was an "immediate threat" to us.  That was false on the face of it.  Bush lied about it and Congress was too weak-kneed to call him on it.


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




Hmmm..., bailing out U.S. companies is bad, but keeping a foreigners in business is good?  We saved them from a madman, why would Bush not even get us our just due?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2011)

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN.  After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil.  Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels.  Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


One of these deals with a strategic and economic resource vital to the future of Iraq.
The rest do not.  :shrug:


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.
> 
> They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN.  After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.
> 
> ...



Are you nuts?
WMDs? where still there from the 80s
over 500 of them
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and many stated they left Iraq in the 18 months that we gave saddam to do the right thing
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
the cost of the war was never shipped to anyone but GWB? Why would you say that?
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

Brain dead? dude do not make such fool of yourself


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



As the occupying force we were responsible for keeping law and order in the streets for everyone not just for what we thought was important.  Planning, Education, Industry, Information were also vital for the future of Iraq.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Limited resources.  Have to prioritize.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I never said that I agreed with what happened, but I believe that is what happened and that the whole Iraq invasion/occupation has little to do with the oil prices going up.  Bush simple doesn't/didn't answer to us (normal ordinary US citizens).


----------



## konradv (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Didn't say it did.   Just said we'd be sitting pretty, if we'd taken our due.  It's not like we got anything out of the deal.  Saddam wasn't a threat to us, despite mushroom cloud allusions and was really the Iraqis' responsibiltiy.  Our ONLY interest should have been oil.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.
> ...



The last of chemical weapons were all used on the Kurds by Saddam.  When we went in, there were none left.

And yes........Bush Jr. DID leave the cost of the war off the budget, because he didn't want us to know how much money was being spent on it.  

Oh.......and FWIW, I served in the US Navy from 1982 through 2002, so yeah......most of what I know about Iraq is pretty accurate.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I think it was more a time limit.  They couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions.  Turkey didn't allow troop movements at the last minute.

It was a political decision.  It was not left up to the military. 

frontline: the invasion of iraq: interviews: james fallows | PBS

The Army, by contrast, was saying that beating Saddam Hussein was only part of the job. You needed then to think about what would happen afterwards, and towards that end, you needed more people than you would in the smallest possible expeditionary force. 

Therefore, there was a kind of bidding game that went on between the civilian leadership and the Army, where the Army and its allies in the other forces were saying, "We'd like about 400,000 troops to go in." Rumsfeld's idea was more like 75,000. Through a process of negotiation, the U.S. finally went to war with the low 200,000s of troops in Iraq. 


So the bottom line was--?

The bottom line of the tensions between Rumsfeld and the military was that the force went in at a much smaller level than the uniformed military had been recommending, and a larger level than Rumsfeld would have ideally preferred.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 10, 2011)

konradv said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Depend on who "We" is.  Haliburton for example has done exceptionally well over the past 10 years.  Blackwater is another example of a "we" that did really well in Iraq.  

But for the most part I think "We" got _*fucked*_ by the whole Iraq invasion/occupation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Yeah.  That's it.  Secure the oil minisrty so the weapons inspectors can't do their job.


Tell me:
Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?
What prompted Hans Blix to state, in February, that Iraq "has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"?


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



In bullet point format:

- Trash our reputation by invading a country on false pretenses.
- Loss of American lives and resources on a mission that can't be adequately tied to our security at home.
- Greatly empowering Iran and elevating their status in the region by removing their key rival.  
- Greatly empowering China, our future economic rival, through borrowing from them to finance the war.
- Entering in a mission where the best case scenario is establishment of a quasi democratic state akin to Saudi Arabia, which is the home and birthplace of the radical wahibbist mentality that Al Queda adheres too.  

We haven't yet begun to pay the bill for Iraq, both in fiscal cost and reprecussions, and you are calling it a victory?

You are demonstrative of the collective ignorance of simple cause and effect in this country that has allowed us to evolve into a nation full of people who think that military intervention at the drop of a hat is the solution to every problem.


----------



## MikeK (Mar 10, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.
> 
> They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN.  After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you've said here with one exception, which is your belief that Colin Powell didn't know it was a lie.  

Colin Powell is a treacherous, self-serving sonofabitch whose primary skill is serving his masters.  One does not become Chairman of The Joint Chiefs then Secretary of State without being quite politically astute.  And considering the level of intelligence and inside information he had access to there is no way he couldn't know exactly what was going on without being truly stupid -- and Colin Powell is far from stupid.  He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it for the payoff, which was high-ranking political appointment.  

If it were true that Powell had been hoodwinked by Bush he would be screaming from the rooftops about it.  But he's been in hiding like the weasel he is, making an occasional appearance to test the water.

I hold him responsible for the unnecessary death and maiming of tens of thousands of people including the American military personnel whom he commanded.  He deserves to be stood against a wall, stripped and shot.


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



false pretenses?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.N. NEEDS TO MAKE GOOD ON BROKEN RESOLUTIONS. - Free Online Library
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents. 

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having. 

More lies and subterfuge. 

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time. 
Thats no lie, you allowed the liberal media make it into a lie. These items existed, they have never been found
2) empower Iran? there surrounded if you have not noticed, get it? 
3) finance the war? what about the debt BHO has gave us for 2009? its 500 billion more than the Iraq war total 
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
Yes, the goals set forth by congress as well as the american people where met
sorry? not at all
Please try and use accurate information ion the future


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

MikeK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.
> ...



tell me where these stock-piles went then?
THE League of Nations' covenant, signed in the wake of World War I, declared that an attack on one was an attack on them all. World War II and the demise of the League resulted when it failed to live up to that covenant. 

Today, the United Nations faces a similar test. For 12 years the U.N. has ordered Saddam Hussein - through 17 Security Council resolutions - to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, Saddam Hussein has refused, using lies and subterfuge to thwart the will of the world community. 

If the U.N. fails to enforce its resolutions, the butcher of Baghdad wins. Should the U.N. fail to act decisively, it will whither on the vine of irrelevancy and, as a result, the world will become perilous and unpredictable. 


That is why President Bush is trying so hard to get the U.N. to live up to its responsibilities. The United Nations is far from perfect. But now more than ever the world needs a strong and determined deliberative world body that will back its words with action and stand up to terrorists and those who harbor and supply them. 

So far its actions have been weak and ineffective. 

The United States is not alone in the world, nor should it be. The war against terror affects every free society on Earth. The United States should not be forced to be the world's policeman. We do not seek to fight terrorism alone. But neither will we willingly allow our enemies another opportunity to commit another 9-11, another USS Cole, or another Sudan embassy. 

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents. 

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having. 

More lies and subterfuge. 

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time. 

And what are the ``serious consequences'' proposed by France, Russia and China? More inspections that have failed to move Iraq one iota closer to the goal of 1441, which is disarmament, not inspections. 

Saddam is so confident of the U.N.'s impotency that he has challenged Bush to a debate on Iraq's future. He is laughing at the U.N. 

The time for debate has ended. The world stands perilously at a historical crossroads. Humanity stood at those crossroads before - prior to 1939. Inaction led to World War II. Is that to be the United Nation's legacy? I pray not.
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Wow.  You are actually going to try and debate the WMD issue in the present tense?

You do realize that this is indeed the "future" where we have invaded Iraq, found jack shit, discovered that top government officials were complicit in distorting information about WMDs to get us into Iraq, and that the whole thing was a fucking fabrication, right?  

Get on message.  After the WMD thing went bust, the new talking point is that we invaded Iraq to "spread democracy".  Once again, that's "to spread democracy".


----------



## JRK (Mar 10, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



The message is one the media made up
All W ever said was he admitted we never found the stock-piles we thought we would
Look those stock-piles where there
This information came from the UN, not the CIA, not England

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents. 

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having. 


every-one acts as though this information 5 weeks after congress voted to support the war did not exist
this is the UN 
why would any-one then think different or today?
your calling the UN the liar here, not me, not W

where did they go?
Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria - Christian Forums


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


We do it for the big $.

What motivates you to shill for war criminals?


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> The message is one the media made up



Oh, bullshit.  Stop blaming ancillary figures for the fuck ups of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States.  It makes you look absurd.



> All W ever said was he admitted we never found the stock-piles we thought we would



He sure did....




> Look those stock-piles where there
> This information came from the UN, not the CIA, not England
> 
> Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.
> ...



I love it when you guys quote Hans Blix to try and buoy your point.  Both Hans Blix and the UN strongly advocated against us going into Iraq and allowing them to continue their work.  

Perhaps you should quote Mr. Blix in a manner that is more consistent with his views:

CNN.com - Blix takes Washington to task - Jun. 12, 2003



> every-one acts as though this information 5 weeks after congress voted to support the war did not exist
> this is the UN
> why would any-one then think different or today?



Because we didn't find a damned thing?



> your calling the UN the liar here, not me, not W



Yeah, as if Bush and his minions didn't make their own claims about "wmds".  Stop hiding behind the UN.  They did not support military intervention in Iraq.  Bush went in unilaterally.  



> where did they go?
> Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria - Christian Forums



Of course, in the absence of a smoking gun, which would have vindicated the Bush Administration (to some), we have to make up an excuse to try and cover our asses.  It's all speculative, we don't know what, if anything, was transported our of the country prior to our invasion. 

It also misses the point.  If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right.  Otherwise, you look stupid.  

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?  The Bush propaganda machine must have been working overtime on that one.  

Even the Bush administration knew they had screwed the pooch on the WMD thing.

Amazingly, people still bought it.

The truth is, various factions of the Bush Administration wanted to go into Iraq prior September 11th for a variety of reasons.  September 11th provided them with enough wiggle room to crook the intelligence and fool the American people into thinking that we were in danger.  Perhaps you forget:  "We don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over NYC....".  The American people would have never supported toppling Hussein without that.  Once we were in, it was too late and then we basically had to watch as the Bush Administration turned this into a nation building mission.  

At any rate, all this is aside the point.  You asked how people could consider this to be a "failure".  You've been provided with many reasons.  You seem to want to ignore then in favor of arguing about whether we were justified into going into Iraq.  That's irrelevant.  We went into Iraq.  Now we are talking about the aftermath.  

On that note, if the WMDs were moved into Syria as you claim, it means that they are still out there and in the hands of a nation that sponsors terrorism.  That would go on the list as another failure.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


*Dr. Blix also admitted he hadn't found any "smoking guns."*

*"Dr Blix said his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites* but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

"As head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 and 2003, Dr Blix was a key figure in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion as he sought to determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programme.

"Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war - he said he was 'looking for smoking guns' but did not find any.

"While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were 'fragments' and not 'very important' in the bigger picture."

There were no WMD in Iraq and we knew it by 1995:

"*Saddams son-in-law, Hussein Kamel*, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when he defected in mid-1995 *that all (thats right, all*) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991.

Ray McGovern...

"And in mid-2002, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing."


----------



## 8236 (Mar 10, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...



How can anyone take your opinion seriously when you don't even know the difference between the use of the words 'there' and 'their'.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 10, 2011)

People are STILL repeating that idiotic meme about satellite photos of the weapons going to Syria?

Unfuckingbelievable.


----------



## jgarden (Mar 10, 2011)

jgarden said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> It also misses the point.  If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right.  Otherwise, you look stupid.


This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs. 



> BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?


This was always part of the mission.  The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1.  You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.


----------



## MikeK (Mar 10, 2011)

8537 said:


> People are STILL repeating that idiotic meme about satellite photos of the weapons going to Syria?
> 
> Unfuckingbelievable.


It's easy to believe something one wishes strongly enough to believe.  And these self-deluded mentalities are the reason we invaded Iraq.  What has happened in America is in many ways analogous to what happened in Germany in the 1930s.  As Goebbels observed; _No matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough it will be believed by all who wish to believe it._


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > It also misses the point.  If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right.  Otherwise, you look stupid.
> ...



I realize it was about the 15th item on the agenda.  It didn't become the main mission until the WMD thing went bust.

You and I both know the American people would have never supported the war in Iraq simply to liberate Iraqis.


----------



## jgarden (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > It also misses the point.  If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right.  Otherwise, you look stupid.
> ...


*Google "Shaking Hands With Saddam" and read the declassified US State Department documents that show how far out of touch you are with reality.  Among other things, it shows that the Reagan Administratration was not only aware that Saddam was using WMD against his Iranian neighbors, but against Kurd civilians in his own country.

The officia lUS response was that this would not interfere with the Reagan Administration seeking closer relations with Saddam!

Go ahead, call my bluff, demand that I produce the documents in question - I dare you!

Footnote: GHW Bush served as Reagan's Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld was the Reagan Administration's senior representative to Iraq - neither is on record expressing the slightest concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people in this unsavory relationship*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Really?  Cite the 14 ahead of it, and support the order of your list.



> It didn't become the main mission until the WMD thing went bust.


That's just your perception.  People that paid attention know that it was always a significant part of the conversation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 10, 2011)

jgarden said:


> Google "Shaking Hands With Saddam" and read the declassified US State Department documents that show how far out of touch you are with reality.  Among other things, it shows that the Reagan Administratration was not only aware that Saddam was using WMD against his Iranian neighbors, but against Kurd civilians in his own country.


This isnt news, and its relevance is, well, non-existant.
So, your point here is about as invisible as it can be.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 10, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Actually, I can't even find it on the resolution.  Perhaps you could support it, as you are the one that believes that ''spreading democracy" was every really a part of this debacle.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> That's just your perception.  People that paid attention know that it was always a significant part of the conversation.



Horseshit.  We weren't in hysteria over spreading democracy in the run up to invasion.  It was all WMDs.  The American people wouldn't have supported a mission that was solely nation building.


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > The message is one the media made up
> ...



Your opinion
by the way, that bird your shooting, shows the world how serious theses events are to you


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 11, 2011)

MikeK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > People are STILL repeating that idiotic meme about satellite photos of the weapons going to Syria?
> ...


Without the big lie how would ALL governments socialize cost and privatize profit?

Which of the current crop of big lies is the biggest threat to US democracy?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Why is that people, including Iraqi Generals can state that weapons went to Syria and that there is photos that seem to support that and just because your against this war you call this unfuckingbeleivable?
Talk about repeating a lie over and over
There has been no lies
you WMDs? That Saddam was suppose to not have?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
you want a smoking gun?
n a report which might alternately be termed ?stunning? or ?terrifying?, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. ?The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are?. [T]errorists have access to all of them,? the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a ?toxic cloud?, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- ?don't exist.?

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying ?it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]?a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for? in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that ?Bush lied? when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about ?inconvenient? parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this ?why?: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Here stick that middle finger in this pie hole

n a report which might alternately be termed ?stunning? or ?terrifying?, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. ?The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are?. [T]errorists have access to all of them,? the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a ?toxic cloud?, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- ?don't exist.?

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying ?it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]?a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for? in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that ?Bush lied? when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about ?inconvenient? parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this ?why?: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

If I was getting my "news" from tommyduggan.com, I wouldn't provide a link either, JRK.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:
			
		

> "Why is that people, including Iraqi Generals can state that weapons went to Syria and that there is photos that seem to support that and just because your against this war you call this unfuckingbeleivable?
> Talk about repeating a lie over and over
> There has been no lies



So, we are to believe that the US government has real time satellite photos of weapons being removed from a warehouse near Baghdad, loaded up on trucks and sent to Syria?  This is what you are saying?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

8537 said:


> If I was getting my "news" from tommyduggan.com, I wouldn't provide a link either, JRK.



UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr1441.htm
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) 

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002

The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq&#8217;s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council&#8217;s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, Noting that the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq&#8217;s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions, Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq&#8217;s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq&#8217;s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC&#8217;s or the IAEA&#8217;s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

&#8211; All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq&#8217;s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

&#8211; Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

&#8211; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Annex

Text of Blix/El-Baradei letter


United Nations Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission
The Executive Chairman
International Atomic Energy Agency
The Director General
8 October 2002


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

Oh, it's from the Freepers!  That's much better than tommyduggan.com! )

Now back to my question:

We are to believe that the US government has real time satellite photos of weapons being removed from a warehouse near Baghdad, loaded up on trucks and sent to Syria? This is what you are saying?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

THE MORE YOU SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, THE MORE THE ONES WHO REPEATED THE LIES 
ABOUT THE WAR MAKES ME SAD AND ANGRY
From the UN, 11/2002
If there ever was a smoking gun it was the number of WMDs the UN knew Saddam had and that have never been found


Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> THE MORE YOU SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, THE MORE THE ONES WHO REPEATED THE LIES
> ABOUT THE WAR MAKES ME SAD AND ANGRY
> From the UN, 11/2002
> If there ever was a smoking gun it was the number of WMDs the UN knew Saddam had and that have never been found
> ...



We are to believe that the US government has real time satellite photos of weapons being removed from a warehouse near Baghdad, loaded up on trucks and sent to Syria? This is what you are saying?


----------



## midcan5 (Mar 11, 2011)

The dead would call it a failure. The children without parents would call it a failure. The maimed would call it a failure. And if we are so callous we ignore the unnecessary deaths, our entire society materially would call it a failure for its great waste. 

Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules

"I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial."

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."

'The Missing Moral Center: Murdering the Innocent'

"If you have ever wondered how a serial murderer -- a murderer who is sane and fully aware of the acts he has committed -- can remain steadfastly convinced of his own moral superiority and show not even the slightest glimmer of remorse, you should not wonder any longer."

Once Upon a Time...: We Are Not Freaks
The Sacred Moment: Essays Based on the Work of Alice Miller

"Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not threaten us. Our leaders knew it. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq were blatant, indefensible acts of aggression. Therefore, when the very first Iraqi was killed as the result of our actions, we had committed an act that was gravely immoral, and entirely unforgivable. Yet even now, most Americans desperately cling to the notion that our actions might still be redeemed."

Once Upon a Time...: The Missing Moral Center: Murdering the Innocent


----------



## konradv (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> THE MORE YOU SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, THE MORE THE ONES WHO REPEATED THE LIES
> ABOUT THE WAR MAKES ME SAD AND ANGRY
> From the UN, 11/2002
> If there ever was a smoking gun it was the number of WMDs the UN knew Saddam had and that have never been found
> ...



There still was no "immediate threat" as touted by the Bush administration.  The only reason for going in that would have been in the immediate national interest would have been to secure oil supplies.  Since that was never an objective, the war was a fail from the get-go, IMO.


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

8537 said:


> Oh, it's from the Freepers!  That's much better than tommyduggan.com! )
> 
> Now back to my question:
> 
> We are to believe that the US government has real time satellite photos of weapons being removed from a warehouse near Baghdad, loaded up on trucks and sent to Syria? This is what you are saying?



My place in life is to take information that never gets seen and putting it up against information that at best is 1/2 truth

If you read the information herein the UN stated that there was many WMDs that existed that have never been found

elected UN Security Council Resolutions
UNSCR 687, 3 April 1991&#8212;created the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and required Iraq to accept &#8220;the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision&#8221; of its chemical and biological weapons and missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and their associated programs, stocks, components, research, and facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with abolition of Iraq&#8217;s nuclear weapons program.

UNSCR 706, 15 August 1991&#8212;proposed allowing Iraq to export oil to pay for food, medicine, and compensation payments to Kuwait and cost of UN operations.

UNSCR 707, 15 August 1991&#8212;noted Iraq&#8217;s &#8220;flagrant violation&#8221; of UNSCR 687 and demanded that Iraq provide &#8220;full, final, and complete disclosure&#8221; (FFCD) of its WMD programs, provide inspectors with &#8220;immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access&#8221; to inspection sites, and cease all attempts to conceal material or equipment from its WMD and missile programs.

UNSCR 712, 2 September 1991&#8212;Authorizes immediate release of funds from escrow to finance payments for the purchase of foodstuffs, medicines and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, and confirmed that funds from other sources may be deposited in the escrow account to be immediately available to meet Iraq&#8217;s humanitarian needs, and urges that any provision be undertaken through arrangements which assure their equitable distribution to meet humanitarian needs.

UNSCR 715, 11 October 1991&#8212;approved UNSCOM and IAEA plans for Ongoing Monitoring and Verification (OMV) to prevent Iraq from reconstituting its WMD programs.

UNSCR 986, 14 April 1995&#8212;allowed Iraq to export $1,000,000,000 of petroleum and petroleum products every 90 days, placed the funds in an escrow account, and allowed Iraq to purchase food, medicines, and humanitarian supplies with the proceeds. Laid the groundwork of what came to be known as the Oil-For-Food Program.

UNSCR 1051, 27 March 1996&#8212;approved a mechanism for monitoring Iraqi imports and exports as required by UNSCR 715. The mechanism allowed the UN and the IAEA to monitor the import of dual-use goods in Iraq.

UNSCR 1154, 2 March 1998&#8212;provide Security Council endorsement for a Memorandum of Understanding between the UN Secretary General and the Iraqi Regime that governed the inspection of presidential palaces and other sensitive sites.

UNSCR 1194, 9 September 1998&#8212;condemned Iraq&#8217;s decision to halt cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections in August 1998 as a &#8220;flagrant violation&#8221; of its obligations and demanded that Iraq restore cooperation with UNSCOM. The resolution suspended sanctions reviews but promised Iraq a &#8220;comprehensive review&#8221; of its situation once cooperation resumed and Iraq demonstrated its willingness to comply.

UNSCR 1205, 5 November 1998&#8212;condemned Iraq &#8220;flagrant violation&#8221; of earlier UNSCRs in suspending cooperation with UN monitoring activities in Iraq on 31 October 1998.

UNSCR 1284, 17 December 1999&#8212;established the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to take over the responsibilities mandated to UNSCOM under UNSCR 687. It also linked Iraqi cooperation in settling disarmament issues with the suspension and subsequent lifting of sanctions. UNSCR 1284 also abolished the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports.

UNSCR 1441, 8 November 2002&#8212;*declared Iraq in material breach of its obligations under previous resolutions including 687, required new weapons declarations from Iraq, and included stringent provisions for Iraqi compliance, including access to all sites, interviews with scientists, and landing and over flight rights.*

http://www.redstate.com/harod/2008/09/28/hans-blix-report-documents-saddam-never-accou/

####Clearly Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement

Chemical
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

Bilogical
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq&#8217;s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

Missiles
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.


http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

Hilarious!


> Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;



The "complete list" was a blank sheet of paper.  That's the whole point.

It's amazing to watch people cling to a fantasy, even after a decade of evidence proves the fantasy pure fiction.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, it's from the Freepers!  That's much better than tommyduggan.com! )
> ...



Now back to my question:

We are to believe that the US government has real time satellite photos of weapons being removed from a warehouse near Baghdad, loaded up on trucks and sent to Syria? This is what you are saying?


----------



## jgarden (Mar 11, 2011)

*In his book "Fiasco," Thomas E. Ricks, senior Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post notes  that Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom, tried in invade Iraq on the cheap by sending far fewer American troops necessary to occupy and pacify that nation.  That decision would repeatedly compromise the whole Iraqi mission.

He notes that even after the invasion, it took a year before the Americam military had the necessary manpower to actually secure the Iraq/Syrian border.

The fact that senior Iraqi officials were allowed to escape and that this border was not secured immediately while the invasion was in progress, due to a a lack of troop availability, is scandaleous!*


----------



## del (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



only the ability to think


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



The jury is still out on it. We haven't left the country and YES we are still doing partols there. Sadam might have been a bad man, but he was a good polarizing force to Iran. With Iraq seemingly pro-Iran now, I'm not sure that is a good outcome. We were sold on Iraq have WMD, which even Sadam said he mislead the world to thinking he had them, in order to frighten Iran. There was no discovery any WMDs! That was a failure, because that is what we were sold on.

In the end, Iraq won't go down as a failure like Vietnam. HOWEVER, I think it will go down as an unnecessary war of choice built on erroneous intelligence (but not  built on lies, I truly believe the administration thought there were WMDs and it was a kneejerk reaction to invade because the ashes of 9/11 were still present). That is hardly something to brag about!

Oh yea, like the ungrateful Kuwaitis, fictionious people of Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalians etc, the Iraqi Shia (who lead the country and are the people we freed from Sadam's wrath) will preach hatred of America, the West and Amerians within a decade.


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> The dead would call it a failure. The children without parents would call it a failure. The maimed would call it a failure. And if we are so callous we ignore the unnecessary deaths, our entire society materially would call it a failure for its great waste.
> 
> Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules
> 
> ...



Why would anyone debate opinions?
This is where you on the left do not get it
This is why my threads as well as my links are information based

Debate?
murdering the innocent people?
without Saddam and 9-11 does this event ever occur? W was the last man standing, the problem with Saddam and terror had been going on for along time
Occupation? what occupation?
the green zone?


----------



## konradv (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > The dead would call it a failure. The children without parents would call it a failure. The maimed would call it a failure. And if we are so callous we ignore the unnecessary deaths, our entire society materially would call it a failure for its great waste.
> ...



Sure Saddam was a bad guy, but was it really in our national interest to go in just for that?  Are you now going to call for an invasion of NK?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



Look Saddam was the reason for the season
with respect
the left puts out propaganda so the details of the events become bush lied people died

Saddam lied
Saddam had 10 years to clean his act up
this is from the UN 11/2002
Saddam had been lying for 10 years

####Clearly Saddam was in violation of the cease fire agreement

Chemical
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, *we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
*
Bilogical
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991._ Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction._

*There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared*, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. *It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.*

*As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraqs submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
*
Missiles
Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.


Update 27 January 2003

he was lying then, 13 months after 9-11


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



I may not agree with all, but your opinion had class


----------



## konradv (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



How did that make him an "immediate threat" to the US as the administration said.  I believe we're further than 183 km away from Iraq and could have bombed him into the Stone Age, if he'd used them on anyone else.


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

konradv said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I think the real question post 9-11 was who is in this world to do harm and who is not. 
The 19 insane terrorist that caused all of this to reach the level it did, did it with basically pocket knives
If I was a person who opposed that war the argument would be what does it matter if he had a nuclear bomb. all of that death and mayhem was caused with 19 pocket knives

There is so much from gassing a sub-way system to supplying WMDs to those we where about to go to war with. GWB and his admin had-had enough
Saddam does this or else


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 11, 2011)

The Shiites in Iraq are not interested in establishing a republic.  They don't trust the Sunni and will do their best to keep them underfoot.  Remember, this is a part of the world where revenge is still an admirable quality.


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

beowolfe said:


> The Shiites in Iraq are not interested in establishing a republic.  They don't trust the Sunni and will do their best to keep them underfoot.  Remember, this is a part of the world where revenge is still an admirable quality.



I will not debate that
The difference is Iraq was a free country until 1959 (I think it was 59 when they went to a dictator-ship)

another item that is missed in this discussion is having a secure base and airfield where they have the 50,000 american troops at is not a mistake in this venture as I deem a success


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
> 
> 12. *Decides to convene immediately *upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, *in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance* with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
> 
> ...



What is it called when the USA signs a SCR and then renigs on it's obligations in that SCR?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
> ...



War?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

del said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



That picture you have is funny
Why you would call your fellow american, or should I say state I am un able to think because we dis agree is sad
See its like how did we get here?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Illegal war?


----------



## JRK (Mar 11, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



why do you feel its illegal?


----------



## idb (Mar 12, 2011)

It was a cock-up from start to finish - it made great t.v. though.


----------



## FreedomAli (Mar 12, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> > 1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.
> 
> 
> Then the Democrats share in that illegal behavior. Bush did not take this nation to war on his own, he could not have done it without the support from the congress and senate, and here is what they thought.
> ...



Again a lie.  There were few terror attacks in Iraq until the U.S. invaded.  But, since the U.S. funds Posada, the MEK, the PPK, the Jundallah and other terrorist groups, it is only fair to fight fire with fire.  Not only that, but the U.S. government uses the military as an instrument or terror.  They drop 1000 lb bombs and the second someone hits the U.S. with an aircraft into a building the government wants us to surrender all our liberty.  As far as people killing people, I would say modern government has them all beat.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed many tens of millions of people.  I guess the U.S. figures that since Muslims kill each other that gives the U.S. license to kill innocents?  

The fact is you are a neocon fascist warmonger and will soon find that no country ever had a military so powerful that it could prevent war in times of peace, or guarantee victory in times of war.

Also, you are such a moron to say: "Well, the Democrats did that too".  In case you did not notice, both parties have been engaging in imperialism and militarism since WWII.  The Trotskyites have equally infected the Right and the Let.


----------



## JRK (Mar 12, 2011)

FreedomAli said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > > 1.  By disregarding the UNSCR 1441(which the US signed onto) the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.
> ...



Terror has increased?
How would you know that?
Until it became politically advantageous to cover the bad events as they occurred in Iraq, do you have any idea how many murders took place in one year? how many people Saddam had executed per year?
Is the killing of over 30 people in Fort Hood Texas with the "alleged" killer screaming Alli Akbar any different than whats going on in Iraq? if so how?


----------



## JRK (Mar 14, 2011)

Good Morning Liberals and Cons both


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 14, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Without the big lie how would ALL governments socialize cost and privatize profit?



Considering TARP, Porkulus and the fascist merging of GM, Chrysler and the federal government, it looks like our government socializes costs and funnels profits to well connected looters in a very "in your face" fashion.



> Which of the current crop of big lies is the biggest threat to US democracy?



The US isn't a democracy.

But fascist care and the lies supporting Obama's fascist care are the biggest threat to the economic stability and viability of the nation.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 14, 2011)

8537 said:


> If I was getting my "news" from tommyduggan.com, I wouldn't provide a link either, JRK.



Good thing you get 100% of your "news" from George Soros then, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 14, 2011)

8537 said:


> Oh, it's from the Freepers!  That's much better than tommyduggan.com! )



So he absolutely fucking nails you with the facts, and the best you can do is attack his source?

BWAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 14, 2011)

I was on Bush's side when he flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier back in the day. (Of course it was for that one mission and got blown out of proportion, but hey)

Why?

Think about what we achieved:

1. Bloody dictator ousted
2. Fair & Balanced Constitution written (no small feat)
3. Police force gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections
5. Schools & Hospitals Restored and even improved
6. Military force gathered and trained

THAT'S A LOT! MISSION A-FUCKING CCOMPLISHED!

But on the other side of things...here's what pisses me off. Conservatives I just gave you your credit...but WHERE IS THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??

I'm talking about the personal responsibility of the Iraqi people!! Some conservatives love to bitch and moan when it's the personal responsibility of minorities or other liberal groups they want to rail against...but when it comes to an ENTIRELY OTHER fricking country...we're supposed to hold their hand for 20 - 100 years?   Hell no. 

Power vacuum or not...it's PAST time for us to get out. And time for the Iraqis to have some personal responsibility of their own.


----------



## JRK (Mar 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > If I was getting my "news" from tommyduggan.com, I wouldn't provide a link either, JRK.
> ...



What is this link from have to do with the truth?
What am I missing here from this guy that keeps talking about tommyduggan.com?


----------



## JRK (Mar 14, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I was on Bush's side when he flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier back in the day. (Of course it was for that one mission and got blown out of proportion, but hey)
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



The mission accomplished banner was not GWB idea
Ex-Bush aide takes blame for &#8216;Mission Accomplished&#8217; &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
From the minute it was put up he said it was a huge mistake


----------



## Vast LWC (Mar 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
> 
> 2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.
> 
> ...



Note that these are all Libertarian reasons why the war should never have been fought.  Any Republican who calls themselves a "Libertarian" (and there are many) should follow Ron Paul's advice and agree with just about all of this.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> FreedomAli said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...





Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders  and many of them are under Iranian influence. 

"The US occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says. 

Maha Sabria, professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad tells IPS. "The violation of women's rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis." But, she said, "women bear a double burden under occupation because we have lost a lot of freedom because of it. 

"More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs." 

.:Middle East Online :.


----------



## JRK (Mar 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > FreedomAli said:
> ...



So things under Saddam where great huh?
why did his own people hang him?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Mar 14, 2011)

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!! Nuff said.


----------



## jgarden (Mar 15, 2011)

*If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?*


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?*



The job stimulus
They way the world dealt with Saddam from 91-03
Not finishing Saddam off in 91
Sticking our nose in Saddam's business in the 80s
The lies that went with Obama-care
to act like the rich is evil because they only pay 40-50% of there income in taxes
Class warfare

Shall I go on?


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 15, 2011)

Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.


----------



## 8537 (Mar 15, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?*



anything proposed or enacted by a Democrat.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 15, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.




Capitalism is not fair.


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.



To start with the to 1% has stopped spending money, I think the question you have to ask your self is why
you elected him

Those who have lost there jobs?m how many more jobs would we have in this country if we were drilling/extracting and refining oil right here in the good ol USA?
How about shale?
How about some nukes (power plants)
no-one can create work if the govt stops it

When the housing bubble busted all of those people have no where to go. How is that a rich persons fault?


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Mar 15, 2011)

As long as American soldiers are dying while our government funnels billions of taxpayer dollars into a potentially oil rich country, I wouldn't qualify our position as exactly successful either.  Unless one makes his living in the business of oil, as did the two miscreants who lied and deceived us into this mess.

It is difficult to acknowledge that even a modicum of success has been achieved in Iraq or the Middle East for that matter.  My conclusion is based solely upon the fact that the original mission was to capture Osama bin Laden.  A terrorist leader whom all America had been led to believe planned and executed 9/11.  Sadly the real facts are that 10 years later, the government is no closer to finding those who perpetrated 9/11 than they were on 9/12/2001.  And obviously, they are as unconcerned about this as were the previous office holders.

Therefore, without taking into account any _faux pas_ committed over the course - such as not finding WMDs, because there weren't any in the first place - the indifferent  cavalier attitude demonstrated by Congress and the Administration in my estimation supersedes any of their past SNAFUs.  The United States government has quite simply breached its trust with the people.   _But then I am a seasoned cynic when it comes to the workings of this government and those who work for it.  For I've not trusted nor relied upon the words or deeds of elected officials since the assassination of JFK and subsequent escalation of the Viet Nam war shortly thereafter.  _


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

Poli_Sigh said:


> As long as American soldiers are dying while our government funnels billions of taxpayer dollars into a potentially oil rich country, I wouldn't qualify our position as exactly successful either.  Unless one makes his living in the business of oil, as did the two miscreants who lied and deceived us into this mess.
> 
> It is difficult to acknowledge that even a modicum of success has been achieved in Iraq or the Middle East for that matter.  My conclusion is based solely upon the fact that the original mission was to capture Osama bin Laden.  A terrorist leader whom all America had been led to believe planned and executed 9/11.  Sadly the real facts are that 10 years later, the government is no closer to finding those who perpetrated 9/11 than they were on 9/12/2001.  And obviously, they are as unconcerned about this as were the previous office holders.
> 
> Therefore, without taking into account any _faux pas_ committed over the course - such as not finding WMDs, because there weren't any in the first place - the indifferent  cavalier attitude demonstrated by Congress and the Administration in my estimation supersedes any of their past SNAFUs.  The United States government has quite simply breached its trust with the people.   _But then I am a seasoned cynic when it comes to the workings of this government and those who work for it.  For I've not trusted nor relied upon the words or deeds of elected officials since the assassination of JFK and subsequent escalation of the Viet Nam war shortly thereafter.  _



Who lied?
lets start there
was it Clinton?
How about Pelosi?
[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

What does oil have to do with 9-11 and the events that began in 1991 and found an end point in March 2003?
Who said the mission solely based on getting OBL? you?
Those who are @ gitmo and those who have been killed would dis agree with you, its a different world for those people
Taliban Figure Killed in Airstrike, U.S. Says - washingtonpost.com
Bin Laden 'associate' killed in Afghanistan. 23/12/2006. ABC News Online


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > I was on Bush's side when he flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier back in the day. (Of course it was for that one mission and got blown out of proportion, but hey)
> ...



Thanks for not addressing what I actually was talking about ...and blindly defending something I wasnt attacking him on. Wow. Some people around here can't get their heads out of their asses. Even when people support them.


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Personal responsibility for what?
The Iraqi people outside the green zone have took over most all of what it is they needed to do
Would you like to guess why we are not out 100%? 
Iraqi PM: Forces ready to take over security - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com
BAGHDAD  Iraq's prime minister said Tuesday that Iraqi forces are ready to take over their own security as the U.S. begins to withdraw but that the government still needs help gathering intelligence to target insurgents and prevent attacks.
Nouri al-Maliki also stressed his government's decision not to extend the June 30 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from urban areas includes northern areas of Mosul and Diyala, despite continued insurgent activity there.
"The timetable for the U.S withdrawal is a definite date," al-Maliki told The Associated Press, speaking aboard his plane en route home from Paris. "We will not accept any change."
The comments were the firmest yet by al-Maliki, underscoring the government's determination not to allow any extension of the deadlines set out in a U.S.-Iraqi security pact, which also calls for a full U.S. withdrawal from the country by the end of 2011.
Last month, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, said he was worried Iraqi forces won't be ready to assume full responsibility for Mosul by the end of June. U.S. commanders also have raised concern over Iraqi readiness to take over control in the volatile province of Diyala.
Al-Maliki dismissed such concerns, pointing out the security pact allows the government to ask for U.S. assistance if needed.
'No delay in U.S. withrawal' 
"There will be no delay in the U.S withdrawal, even in Mosul or Diyala," he said. "If there will be a need for the U.S forces, they will be available outside the cities."


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 15, 2011)

Curveball (the one who claimed that Iraq had WMD's) was the ONLY FUCKING SOURCE OF THAT KNOWLEDGE!  Cheney and Jr. based their whole attack on that one little bullshit artist who has since admitted that he lied.

Bush and Cheney held him up at their primary source, when in fact he was the only one.

Using the scare of 9/11, he was able to sell his crappy war to us.

Any war based on a lie, mainly for oil (because the previous admin were oil men), while letting the REAL perpetrator of 9/11 go free is a total and complete failure.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Mar 15, 2011)

> Who lied?
> lets start there
> was it Clinton?
> How about Pelosi?
> ...



If you don't know who in government has been lying, about what and for how long, then I'd venture to say you haven't been paying attention for years.  Of course, I don't know your age - so perhaps you're simply still politically wet behind the ears.  

As for saying who lied and about what during the last Administration and those prior, when I said I don't trust those in government, I meant I don't trust anyone regardless of their political party or other proclivities.  However there is a vast difference between Clinton's (not that I'm a fan) lies and the treachery, deceit and lies employed by Bush and Cheney to further their own personal agendas,

During Clinton's second term, it became a Republican obsession to obfuscate reality in favor of concentrating on Clinton's sexual dalliances - as if no other President in history had ever dallied in such a manner before (chuckle).   Rather than conduct the country's business, which included keeping a vigilant eye on national security as well as those who might threaten it, Congressional Republicans spent every waking hour for almost 4 years scripting and acting out their daily Soap Opera.  Do actually believe any of them bothered to set aside their impeachment furor in favor of acting responsibly and doing their jobs? Basically Congress led by the Republicans did everything but the country's business.  

I suspect it was during this untended watch Osama bin Laden took the opportunity to recruit a terrorist team and plan an attack.  

As for Clinton era lies, they revolved around his telling everyone he never had "sex with that woman."  We all knew he was lying but so what, but a far cry from the purposefully setting about to further frighten an already terrified nation with lies regarding a conspiracy between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11.  Since bin Laden is Sunni and Hussein a Shiite, there's no way they'd ever conspire to do anything - unless it involved killing one another.  Of course, Cheney banked on the fact that most Americans were ignorant about all things Middle Eastern, especially religion, culture or politics.  I hate to say it, but he was certainly right,  

Bush took unsubstantiated foreign intelligence and ratcheted it up a notch.  He told Americans that Iraq had WMDs knowing full well his information was faulty and had even been recalled by the senders. We now know Iraq didn't posses the materials needed to build a WMD.  

We do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has threatened on more than one occasion to deploy them in India's direction.  We know in spite of Bush pumping millions into the Pakistani economy, they still don't like us. I'd make a preemptive guess that a preemptive strike against them however is highly unlikely - in fact I'd say it's out of the question..

Speaking of questions, I have one for you.  If Saddam Hussein had indeed been building and squirreling away WMDs, exactly on whom do you think he was planning using them?  It might just be me but if I received word that the most powerful military force in the world was on its way to take me out, I'd throw everything I had at them - including WMDs if I had them.  

One can only wonder what old Saddam was waiting for?  To most of us that was another big Red flag.

By the way, no doubt Bill Clinton lied while in office.  That's another proclivity our Presidents seem committed to having.  

P.S. As to the utter ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein - I certainly won't argue in his defense.  However you may wish to enlighten yourself on how our Congress responded upon hearing that he had used biological warfare against the Kurds, murdering 40K men, women and children.  Our response is in the Congressional Record and it doesn't show us in a favorable light.  The entire Middle East situation in which we are currently embroiled has been on-going since the end of WWII or before, possibly it began with the discovery of huge oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc.  Whatever it is we're doing there has absolutely nothing to do with liberty, freedom or the American Way and it never has.  Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its oil reserves. As for Afghanistan ever bother finding out why the Russians kept trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1980s?  Or which country aided the Taliban in its rise to power.  You'll find Russian along with our _oily_ fingerprints all over that situation as well.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 15, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.



Better decisions in a free society?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> So things under Saddam where great huh?
> why did his own people hang him?



No, not great like we have here in the states, but the point is things got worse not better for Iraqis(esp women) after the shiites executed Saddam.


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

Poli_Sigh said:


> > Who lied?
> > lets start there
> > was it Clinton?
> > How about Pelosi?
> ...



why is it everyone forgets these events?

Exclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004
Documents Show That U.N. Inspector Believed Saddam Was Hiding Secret Weapons
UNITED NATIONS  U.N. chief Iraq arms inspector Dr. Hans Blix believed that Baghdad may have been hiding as much as 10,000 liters of deadly anthrax before the U.S.- and British-led coalition invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

According to experts, if properly weaponized, that amount of anthrax could neutralize a city the size of New York.

The admission by Blix was found in a private report sent to the UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Observation and Verification Commission) College of Commissioners just weeks before the invasion. The college is the U.N. body's executive board.

In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.

The private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.

A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.

"In a spore form you can hide it in a cool cellar and perhaps keep it for as long as 15 years," Ekeus proclaimed.

Ekeus went on to explain that in such a form, anthrax is fairly safe and would be difficult for arms inspectors to track down.

"You can store it in a person's home. How can we search every home in Iraq?" Ekeus once asked.

In his speech, Tenet took exception with the claim made by the United States' recently departed Iraq arms hunter David Kay that the Iraq Survey Group, which has not found WMD, had completed "85 percent" of its work.

Tenet told the Georgetown audience that the Iraq group "has nowhere even close to completing 85 percent of its work."

Kay's successor, former deputy chief U.N. Iraq arms inspector Charles Duelfer, is expected to take up his new duties in Baghdad this week.

Based on statements by Blix and his predecessor Rolf Ekeus, Tenet's claims may be accurate, in a strict technical sense.

Questioned by NewsMax, Blix explained from his home in Stockholm, Sweden:

"We [the U.N.] had strong suspicions that some anthrax was still hidden, but we did not find the evidence to assert its existence."

The U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (the U.N.'s atomic watchdog) resumed Iraq inspections in December 2003 after a four-year hiatus.

Despite three months of intensive searches, no evidence of exotic weapons surfaced, other than the existence of modified al-Samoud missiles.

The al-Samoud's were found to have violated U.N. sanctions and were being destroyed by Iraq (under U.N. supervision) leading up to the coalition's invasion.

Blix pointed out that all U.N. inspections and arms control operations ceased when the coalition invaded Iraq.

Since then, intelligence from Washington and London to the U.N. has virtually ceased.

Blix retired from his post in July 2003 convinced that the U.N. would not be permitted to resume its inspections under a Security Council mandate.

The future of UNMOVIC has remained in limbo since Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The United States' U.N. ambassador, John Negroponte, told reporters that the future of UNMOVIC "will be revisited at a future date." The ambassador refused to give a time table for the "revisit."

Blix is expected to tell his side of the search for Iraq's secret weapons in a book due to be released next month.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 15, 2011)

Curveball.....you know.....the Iraqi national who told us Saddam had WMD's?

Guess what.......he's since admitted that he lied.

Our whole war was based on lies and greed.  Shall we talk about Cheney's company Halliburton and their shoddy construction inside the Green Zone that killed around 47 soldiers (some of whom were special forces) by electrocuting them in the showers?

How's about the unarmored HumVees that we started with?

Yeah......sure.........


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > So things under Saddam where great huh?
> ...



Thats like stating the whites executed a black in the united states
Thats because there is allot more whites than blacks and 100% of the time the person who gets executed here has been judged such.
See its just how you spin it

And as far as things getting worse, with respect to you keep stating that a poll would be nice, its kind of in a place in which the level of agendas, well Dan Rather and his dealings in 2004 should cover that


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Curveball.....you know.....the Iraqi national who told us Saddam had WMD's?
> 
> Guess what.......he's since admitted that he lied.
> 
> ...



what about this guy/
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.



Read more: Saddam general: WMDs in Syria Saddam general: WMDs in Syria


how about these 500 munitions that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

how about Blix and the UN?
In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.
he private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that *weapons Baghdad could not account for* was not proof they existed and were hidden.

A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> No, not great like we have here in the states, but the point is things got worse not better for Iraqis(esp women) after the shiites executed Saddam.



What a steaming pile of shit.

The lack of integrity it took for you to post that makes ME blush.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Do you have a coherent answer?

Do you know where you are in this conversation?  

Because I pointed out that several sectors of Iraqi society have suffered loss of liberty and freedom after the US invasion and occuaption you state rather flipantly that "So things under Saddam where great huh?"

It has nothing to do with our own history of civil rights abuses.  

Also, what does Dan Rather have to do with the fact that Iraqis lost freedom and liberty due to the USA invasion and occupation?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > No, not great like we have here in the states, but the point is things got worse not better for Iraqis(esp women) after the shiites executed Saddam.
> ...



Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahahaha.  Oh no, a living pile of human excrement is telling me I have no integrity.  The Horror of it all.  Should I slit my own throat or just put a cap in my head?



Iraq: Vulnerable Citizens at Risk | Human Rights Watch


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Do you have a coherent answer?



Are you able to be honest?

{1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

2001: Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch: Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis."

Iraq's 13 million Shiite Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice.}

Read more: Brainroom: Saddam Hussein's Atrocities - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

FDD: ALERT: Saddam

Saddams Own Torture Videos -- And Some Other Important Info On Saddam's Atrocities(warning-GRAPHIC)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahahaha.  Oh no, a living pile of human excrement is telling me I have no integrity.



You have no integrity. Name calling won't alter this fact. You have no integrity.


----------



## JRK (Mar 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



History of civil rights abuse?
You claimed one group in Iraq was larger another
And I countered that we have a group in this country much larger than another group also, and that group bestows due justice to that other group
Its called justice, you know
has nothing to do with race nor ethnic background as you claim it did in Iraq
Abuse?
who said anything about abuse
If a white man breaks the law and a black judge puts him in prison is that abuse?
same with a white judge and a black criminal?

Your pointing people have lost freedom and Liberty from a time when they got no vote to a time in which they all vote?
i did not see much of a reason to debate thathttp://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/lol.gif


----------



## Late2TheParty (Mar 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



I would consider buying a Honda Civic for a million dollars a failure too.

Yeah, you got what you wanted, but at what cost?

BTW, Iraq was relatively stabile until we arrived.  Then we came in and didn't make sure all those former Iraqy army guys were kept on, pay them a pittance compared to the shitstorm that was to come, and got the whole semi-civil war.

Hell, I heard they bought in Indians to work at rebuilding the country instead of hiring Iraqis themselves.  Penny-wise and pound foolish.  What idiots we have in leadership


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 15, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
> ...


Would you agree (with Marx) it (capitalism) becomes a Revolutionary force after it emasculates government?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 15, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?*



...any conservative who admits the war was a disaster.  The conservative code requires you never admit you were wrong, no matter how badly you fucked up.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
> ...


For the record, JRK, I was pretty clear about Obama's corporate tilt before he was sworn in, and nothing he's done since has changed by mind.

I haven't voted for a Democrat OR Republican in decades EXCEPT for an occasional state or local candidate.

I don't know how many jobs could be created by drilling in this country. I'm guessing it would be far fewer than those created by building high-speed rail and universal internet from sea to shining sea. (Possibly the Pentagon could direct these projects?)

I think Japan might answer your nukes question.
Three strikes (Chernobyl, Three Miles Island and Tokyo) and you are usually O-U-T.

Finally the rich have always saved more money than the rest of us. In the later (terminal?) stages of capitalism this produces a paradox of accumulation for the richest parasites.

There are only so many productive uses their money can be put to. When those becomes scarce, Wall Street becomes a Casino.

The inflation and collapse of the housing/credit bubbles is entirely the fault of gambling losses of the rich that taxpayers were coerced into backing up, IMHO.

And they are not through taking a greater share of national income and wealth. 

The rich can not stop taking for the same reason sharks can't stop swimming.
They will die.
And they know it.


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 16, 2011)

Late2TheParty said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Putting to the side JRK's dumbed-down version of what I posted...

At what cost?? So faced with the dictator who killed THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE..you're asking what the cost was?

And what the FUCK do you mean by stable? If by stable you mean the same government stayed in power...that's retarded because that government was KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

Some people really don't know how to make an argument.


----------



## Late2TheParty (Mar 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> At what cost?? So faced with the dictator who killed THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE..you're asking what the cost was?


Yes.  There are lots of dictators in the world.  They're not an American problem to solve.



> And what the FUCK do you mean by stable? If by stable you mean the same government stayed in power...that's retarded because that government was KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.


The pentagon, via Wikileaks, estimated 92,000 civilians died due to invasion and later occupation/semi-civil-war.  I doubt that many Iraqi civilians would have died under Saddam in the same time span.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a coherent answer?
> ...



Feel free to post any response I've made that deny the above allegations.  More to the point many of those attocities were made during a time in which your hero, Ronnie Raygun, was providing Saddam with financial and military support/aid, after having taken them off the nations who support terrorist list and giving them valued trading partner status, which they held long after the Iranian war was over.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahahaha.  Oh no, a living pile of human excrement is telling me I have no integrity.
> ...



Don't be too suprise when your insults are returned in kind to you.  Someone who flings "Steaming piles of Shit" post, in my opinion does not have the capacity to judge anyones integrity.


----------



## Rinata (Mar 16, 2011)

jrk said:


> 1) remove saddam
> done
> 2) stabilize country
> done
> ...



bfd. THAT was worth all of the American loss of life??? Spare me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Feel free to post any response I've made that deny the above allegations.



Okay.



> No, not great like we have here in the states, but the point is things got worse not better for Iraqis(esp women) after the shiites executed Saddam.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-20.html#post3426925

Hey, but you're lying for the party - which is an honorable thing to do, right?



> More to the point many of those attocities were made during a time in which your hero, Ronnie Raygun, was providing Saddam with financial and military support/aid,



It's spelled "Reagan," stupid fuck. Reagan was not in office in 1992, nor 1997, nor 1998.

There was a constant pattern of abuse. Saddam was a tyrant. From the rape rooms to chemical attacks, this was a constant.

Your blind hatred of anything right of Castro may justify lying in your alleged mind, but it doesn't alter the fact that what you post is patently false.

You serve your party and you have no integrity, ergo you post anything which smears the hated opposition or promotes your shameful party - regardless of veracity.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Don't be too suprise when your insults are returned in kind to you.



You have no integrity.

That isn't an insult, it is demonstrable fact.

You base your posts on how they will serve your party, not on whether they are factual or accurate.

This is simply the truth - which both of us and everyone else in this forum is aware of.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to post any response I've made that deny the above allegations.
> ...



Before Rayguns involvment with Saddam Iraq was the most secular of all Arab Nations.  It boasted the highest literacy rates for women amoung Aram nations.  Women didn't even need to wear veils.

Ronnie Raygun was the one most responisble for Saddams access to western technology. In 1982 he removed Iraq from the nations who sponsor terrorist list and gave them most favored trading status.  This allows them to buy duel use technology from not only American companies but from all of our allies as well.  France, Germany the UK all got in on the sales action too.  We also gave Iraq 4 billion in guarenteed loans (which Iraq defaulted on in 1990).  Rayrun refused to sanction Saddam for using gas on the Iranians during the 1980-1988 war and when it was used against the Kurds in 1988.

Your hero will alway be Raygun to me.  And fitting too.  President Bush was still stumping for the Star War Missile defense as the way to protect America from the foreign threats (not those damn terrorist president Clinton warned him about) on 9-11. 

Better than Ronnie Headroom


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be too suprise when your insults are returned in kind to you.
> ...



Your post is a lie.  Saddam gased the Iranians and the Kurds and Raygun refused to sanction him.  Women and minorities have it worse in post Saddam Iraq than they died under Saddam.

I think we all know whom it is you serve.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 16, 2011)

And, don't forget......it was Ronnie Alzheimer's who gave weapons to OBL and Al-Queda in the first place to help them get rid of the Russians.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Before Rayguns involvment with Saddam Iraq was the most secular of all Arab Nations.



More facts you just made up...

In fact, pre-revolutionary Iran was the most Westernized nation in the region, followed by Turkey.

{In southern Iraq the situation has not been very different. Women are educated and participate as professionals, but the brutality of Saddam Husseins oppressive regime has affected their progress and they have had no independent organizations to raise their awareness and defend their rights. In October 2000 more than 200 women were accused of being prostitutes and publicly beheaded. This was a political campaign by the regime to intimidate the population generally, but it also provoked and authorized the brutal slaughter of women who were actually victims of the economic sanctions imposed by America and its allies from 1991. The sanctions caused starvation and disease, and the provision of basic human needs such as food and shelter for their families became the prime concern for many. }

http://www.iheu.org/node/1020

Hey, you're lying for the party, so it's not really wrong, right?



> Ronnie Raygun was the one most responisble for Saddams access to western technology.



He caused the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, too!



> In 1982 he removed Iraq from the nations who sponsor terrorist list and gave them most favored trading status.  This allows them to buy duel use technology from not only American companies but from all of our allies as well.  France, Germany the UK all got in on the sales action too.  We also gave Iraq 4 billion in guarenteed loans (which Iraq defaulted on in 1990).



You realize that the US had never had any sort of conflict with Iraq. You realize that Carter put Iraq on the list for MFN status, Reagan later approving it. You realize that Iraq was in a conflict with a nation who had engaged in an act of war against the USA?

Ah, but you don't care - you have zero integrity. You serve you party and shape facts to meet party goals.



> Your hero will alway be Raygun to me.



Well, you're kind of a dumbfuck...



> And fitting too.  President Bush was still stumping for the Star War Missile defense as the way to protect America from the foreign threats (not those damn terrorist president Clinton warned him about) on 9-11.



Like Clinton was? 

Clinton's Missile Defense Plans Under Fire

Like your Messiah® is?

Russia Welcome to Participate in Missile Defense, Clinton Says - Businessweek

LOL, fucking hypocrite.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Your opinion
> by the way, that bird your shooting, shows the world how serious theses events are to you



I did my time in Afghanistan.  I have friends that are gone now because of Iraq.

I am serious as a heart attack.  Irony is you finding a middle finger offensive while being a fucking cheerleader for a war we should have never been in.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Your post is a lie.



Nope, I'm stating the facts.

You have zero integrity. You will post anything to attack the right or to support the left.

I suspect you never even consider whether what you post is factual or not - as that is irrelevant - you serve the party.



> Saddam gased the Iranians and the Kurds and Raygun refused to sanction him.



The Iranians who were sending children in and living mine detectors? I can see why you admire them - they share your ethics.



> Women and minorities have it worse in post Saddam Iraq than they died under Saddam.



Bullshit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 16, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> And, don't forget......it was Ronnie Alzheimer's who gave weapons to OBL and Al-Queda in the first place to help them get rid of the Russians.



More lies.

Carter began the shipments of stinger to the Mujahadeen. No one gave OBL weapons. As a wealthy Saudi, what he brought to the game was cash. He used his own funds to further the aims of the Mujahadeen.

Hey, but don't let facts stand in the way of your blind hatred - the party depends on your stupidity.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Here stick that middle finger in this pie hole
> 
> n a report which might alternately be termed ?stunning? or ?terrifying?, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.
> 
> ...



Once again, you do realize that it is 2011, don't you?  You seem to want to dredge up the hyperbolic conjectures of yesteryear when the idiot right wing pundits were desperate to try and cover their boy George's ass for his major fuck up.

In the end, they didn't have too.  Americans were gullible enough to buy into this "spreading democracy" bullshit.

Oh, by the way.  Al Sadir is now trying to inflame the shi'ite/sunni culture wars in Bahrain.  Iran is laughing to the bank.  The Shi'ite Muslims are now going to be a force to be reckoned with.  The Sunni's will no longer be able to keep them down.  

Tell me again, how fucking wonderful this was? 



> You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. ?The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are?. [T]errorists have access to all of them,? the Canadian premier warned.
> 
> The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a ?toxic cloud?, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.
> 
> ...



Again.  I'd like to welcome you to 2011.  Where did those WMDs go?



> It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying ?it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]?a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for? in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.



Ah. Excellent point.  Here's the difference:  Clinton was smart enough not to get into a war over the WMD thing.  Bush was not.  



> So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that ?Bush lied? when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about ?inconvenient? parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?
> 
> America cannot afford the answer to this ?why?: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.
> 
> The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.



Too fucking rich.  A president who takes us to war on false pretenses is the hero and a newsman and fat-assed activist are the "enemy within"?

Take the red pill.


----------



## JRK (Mar 17, 2011)

Rinata said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > 1) remove saddam
> ...



Loss of life?
you will get no argument from me on that matter
If Saddam does the right thing, does any one die?
What everyone misses in these events is that this country was the victim

President Bush stated within a week of 9-11 in no un certain terms Saddam was on notice, get out or else

Saddam does the right thing in 1990 none of these events occur


----------



## konradv (Mar 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...



The ONLY reason for going to war should be compelling national interest.  Saddam's antics and what he was doing to his people doesn't count, since he was esentially bottled up in his own country.  The only compelling reason I see is OIL.  Since we didn't take any, I see the whole episode as pointless.


----------



## JRK (Mar 17, 2011)

konradv said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Rinata said:
> ...



Oil?
increase production means lower prices means less profit
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...



Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.

No.  The Iraq war was a miserable failure under Jr.

And that's coming from someone who was on active duty for the U.S. Navy during BOTH Bush administrations.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 17, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.



Why hasn't your Messiah® caught bin Laden? Why did your Messiah® claim that he would during the campaign, only the turn around and say bin Laden isn't important?

Why are both you and he such fucking hypocrites?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 17, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.
> ...



Hey stupid......it was BUSH JR. that said he was no longer concerned with OBL, and that was only 2 years after 9/11.

And......FWIW........Bush Jr. gave Bin Laden a 7 year head start to get hidden.

Wanna talk about how Jr. lost Bin Laden at Tora Bora?


----------



## JRK (Mar 17, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



What are you babbling about?
GWB gave Bin Ladin a what?
You mean Clinton?
CLINTON BLEW 3 CHANCES TO SEIZE BIN LADEN

And as far as 9-11 and Saddam goes
i dare you to read this

Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties
ust weeks after Clinton bombed the daylights out of suspected hideaways for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he used his January 1999 State of the Union Address to warn America about both bin Laden and Saddam, mentioning the two terror kingpins almost in the same breath. "We will defend our security wherever we are threatened - as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror," Clinton told Congress and the nation. "The bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world." Moments later Clinton segued into the threat posed by Saddam:

"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people." But rather than launch an all out assault on what reporters now call the "dubious" assertion that Saddam and bin Laden had made common cause, the press took Clinton's ball and ran with it.

In fact, as researched and documented this week by FrontPageMagazine.com, in 1999 the national news media was replete with reports linking the Butcher of Baghdad and the man who masterminded the killing of 3,000 Americans almost two years ago.

Here are a few highlights gathered by FrontPage from the press' Saddam-bin Laden file  stories that have since conveniently disappeared down the media's memory hole:

Associated Press Worldstream

Feb. 14, 1999 Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history .... San Jose Mercury News

SUNDAY MORNING FINAL EDITION

Feb. 14, 1999 U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ... Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

... [in] late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world. Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...

More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...

"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official.... Beacon Journal wire services

Oct. 31, 1999 BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN: ... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq. A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial. ...

The Kansas City Star March 2, 1999 International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries By Rich Hood ... He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States. ...

United Press International Nov. 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle. WASHINGTON  The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. ...

U.S. Newswire Dec. 23, 1999 Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks. ... Aauthor Yossef] Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."

National Public Radio MORNING EDITION (10:00 a.m.ET) Feb. 18, 1999 THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER ... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony. ... Foreign news services also carried news of the now-supressed Saddam-bin Laden connection:

Agence France-Presse Feb. 17, 1999 Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."

Deutsche Presse-Agentur Feb. 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

DATELINE: Kuwait City An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours. The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/16/123325


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 17, 2011)

Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.

He did it on Jr.'s.

Oh yeah.......wanna talk about Reagan giving RPG's to Al-Queda?


----------



## JRK (Mar 17, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.
> 
> He did it on Jr.'s.
> 
> Oh yeah.......wanna talk about Reagan giving RPG's to Al-Queda?



Whats that got to do with the Intel that was collected under Clinton's watch?
You when on this rant and rave about war crimes and no ties to IRAQ

well this looks to me like in 2001 there was more than GWB stating there was ties


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 18, 2011)

In 2001 some were predicting the Iraq War would be a "cakewalk"

Do you think they were right?

How does PTSD and soldier suicide factor into your definition of success?


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 18, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> into a war over the WMD thing.  Bush was not.
> Take the red pill.


Yet....Clinton murdered 1 million Iraqi children under *HIS* watch through his international sanctions, and what of the innocent civilians he bombed and killed in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia? I guess they don't matter:



> [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Maybe   Americans don't care about the hundreds of Iraqis Clinton killed  during  the impeachment trial bombings of Iraq, and the scores of Iraqi   civilians (and sheep) killed during the almost daily bombings of Iraq  in  the two years since then.  Most Americans, incredibly enough, don't   even know we're still at war, that we've been bombing Iraq every other   day for the last two years! [/FONT]
> 
> *[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Okay, for the sake of argument, say we can forgive Clinton for killing a few hundred or thousand Iraqis with bombs.  [/FONT]*
> [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]*Bombs   are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent  children  of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years  of  the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August  6,  1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States.*   On May  12, 1996, television&#8217;s "Sixty Minutes" interviewed Madeleine  Albright  (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State).  *Leslie  Stahl  asked Albright, "We have heard half a million children have died  [from  economic sanctions in Iraq].  That's more children than died in   Hiroshima.  Is the price worth it?"
> ...


http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html


----------



## JRK (Mar 18, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > into a war over the WMD thing.  Bush was not.
> ...



The cost we incurred during this 10 year period goes un-noticed also
to  be honest
1991 is when this should have ended
Great  thread


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Unfortunately hypocrisy and misinformation goes on and on and on, its also disgusting to slander one President as being a mass murderer and a war criminal, while ignoring the actions of another which could also be compared to such, and even worse applauding one President for those actions. I am yet to applaud Bush for invading Iraq, or Clinton for his air bombing campaigns, but several people in this thread have beaten us to it. 

I think a lot of people are asking the question, why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.

As I said when I negged geauxtohell "Take a red pill yourself. George Galloway would be proud", after all he has done nothing in this thread but support Saddam's regime. 

PS: Since your new my personal advise is putting geauxtohell on your ignore list, some people in this forum don't deserve an answer (but that recent post of his struck a chord with me), then again I am not here to be popular and I don't care about getting negs for having an intellectual conscience and critical mind (not scared of dying for that either).


----------



## JRK (Mar 18, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Good thread 
thanks for the advice 
What amazes me
I have no issue with peoples opinions

But to have the opinion that become the truth to so many people based on lies, innuendos and "no name sources"
we went from every-one wanting Saddam gone to "Bush lied people died"


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 18, 2011)

I didn't want Saddam gone.  I was actually on active duty during part of that time (retired in 2002), and I would have MUCH preferred that Jr. would have kept after Bin Laden.

When the invasion was announced, my first question was WHY?


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



LOL  Because you feel that the Clinton Administration was a bastion of truth and honesty right?

Who was it that said  "I don't care, dead or alive &#8212; either way It doesn't matter to me."  And "I don't know whether we're going to get him tomorrow or a month from now or a year from now. I don't really know. But we're going to get him,"


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> I didn't want Saddam gone.  I was actually on active duty during part of that time (retired in 2002), and I would have MUCH preferred that Jr. would have kept after Bin Laden.
> 
> When the invasion was announced, my first question was WHY?


I wanted Saddam gone, he was a genocidal dictator, I want Kim Jong Il and a lot of evil people gone. But my main issue with Iraq was the sanctions, same with my issue with North Korea, sanctions never help anyone save help the regime retain power, also western media and the US government calling on the people to rise up against Saddam led Saddam to become more psychotic, paranoid, and murderous than ever before, not to mention led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians who believed it. 

You might say since the US started the mess in the 1980s it had to clean it up, it could have done so in 1991 but decided to wait till now, and though I hate to say it resources not the people mattered when Iraq was chosen as a target. But saying that, now it is done I have to support the war, even if I didn't like its methods as now that the sanctions are over, and Saddams terror is gone the nation can start to recover.


----------



## BlindBoo (Mar 18, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.



In his own words:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):


While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, *we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.* Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

13 years since it's been published!

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey stupid......it was BUSH JR. that said he was no longer concerned with OBL, and that was only 2 years after 9/11.



Goddamn but you're fucking stupid - it's why you're a leftist:

{Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America." }
Barack Obama: it is no longer essential to kill Osama bin Laden - Times Online


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.



Goddamn but you're fucking stupid.

It's why you're a leftist:

{The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994,}

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, that would be Al Qaeda #2, Khaled Shaikh Mohammed - reporting directly to Bin Laden, you fucking moron.


----------



## JRK (Mar 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey JeRK........OBL didn't take down the WTC on Clinton's watch.
> ...



It is amazing is it not?
The press went on a non stop group of lies on W so long they became the truth


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 18, 2011)

You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.

Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down.  And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.

That is why OBL is still running around.  Shit.......after he left Tora Bora he was living fat and happy in the Swat valley.  If we'd actually paid attention, we'd have known that several years ago.

Question Uncensored, exactly how many years have YOU served in the military?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> That is why OBL is still running around.  Shit.......after he left Tora Bora he was living fat and happy in the Swat valley.  If we'd actually paid attention, we'd have known that several years ago.



Yeah, not like the squalor he endured living in Saudi Arabia, poor dear...

ROFL



> Question Uncensored, exactly how many years have YOU served in the military?



Utterly irrelevant to anything.


----------



## JRK (Mar 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
> 
> Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down.  And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.
> 
> ...



I agree with you assessment of 1991 110%
Not with the rest
and as far as OBL being in Tora Bora
did i miss something? 
You think for one minute W would have not jumped at a chance to end his world


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> [
> Yet....Clinton murdered 1 million Iraqi children under *HIS* watch through his international sanctions, and what of the innocent civilians he bombed and killed in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia? I guess they don't matter:



Yes.  This notion obviously upsets you as it warranted a whooping 15 neg rep points from you, you big baby.

Once again, Clinton didn't get us into Iraq.  Bush did.  

You forgot Somalia.  That was Clinton's major military screw up.

But we aren't really talking about Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, or even Clinton, are we?  

This is about Iraq.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> Unfortunately hypocrisy and misinformation goes on and on and on, its also disgusting to slander one President as being a mass murderer and a war criminal,





> As I said when I negged geauxtohell "Take a red pill yourself. George Galloway would be proud", after all he has done nothing in this thread but support Saddam's regime.



I ought to neg you for being a dishonest douchebag.  

When did I call Bush a "murderer" or a "war criminal"?  I've merely pointed out that Clinton didn't get us into Iraq.  Bush did (since you guys keep wanting to talk about Clinton).  Also, when have I "supported Saddam's regime".  Not wanting American forces to participate does not equate to "support" for despotic regimes.  You are making an argument for military intervention into every despotic nation in the world.  After all, if we don't forcefully remove them, we must support them, right?  Once again I am amazed that some of you consider yourselves libertarians and support this fucking nonsense.  



> while ignoring the actions of another which could also be compared to such, and even worse applauding one President for those actions. I am yet to applaud Bush for invading Iraq, or Clinton for his air bombing campaigns, but several people in this thread have beaten us to it.



The point of this thread is to talk about Bush invading Iraq.  What in the fuck are you arguing for?  Are you just here to smear Clinton?  Lame.



> I think a lot of people are asking the question, why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.



Because he knew it would lead to a long, protracted insurgency conflict with a large loss of American lives.  Sr. was much smarter than Junior.  



> PS: Since your new my personal advise is putting geauxtohell on your ignore list,



Ignore lists are for babies that can't take the heat.  I've responded to every post on this thread in a reasonable manner.  If you want to ignore me, then go for it.  It says more about you, than me.  If you can't take disagreement on a political messageboard, you are in the wrong place. 



> some people in this forum don't deserve an answer (but that recent post of his struck a chord with me), then again I am not here to be popular and I don't care about getting negs for having an intellectual conscience and critical mind (not scared of dying for that either).



Intellectuals don't flee debate.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
> ...



You really don't know anything about Afghanistan, do you?

It's known that OBL, and the rest of the AQ network, were in Tora Bora.  We thought we had them surrounded.  Unfortunately, the back side of our forces were Afghan warlords we had paid off.  AQ paid them more and they ended up walking them to safety in Pakistan.  

This isn't exactly a state secret. 

Read a book or something.


----------



## JRK (Mar 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



And all of this information came from?
you have links?
let me add fat and sassy? 
Why was Obama in a frenzy with the droid attacks in Pakistan?

Pakistan drone attacks to intensify, Obama officials say - CSMonitor.com
As Pakistan sharply rebukes United States Predator drone attacks inside Pakistani territory, the Obama administration plans to turn up the number of those attacks in Pakistan's restive tribal belt, according to news reports.

The controversial announcement comes as fierce fighting erupted between the Taliban and a homegrown militia force that the Pakistani government is backing against the extremist force, according to Dawn, an influential English newspaper in Pakistan.

Three police officials, two Lashkar (militia) men and sixteen militants were killed in [an] overnight clash between Taliban and Qaumi Lashkar in Buner district, police and residents said on Tuesday.
The fierce fighting erupted on Monday night when the Qaumi Lashkar and local police force made efforts to enter the Gokand valley via Rajagaly Kandow from Pir Baba side to flush out Taliban militants who had sneaked in to the district on Saturday from neighbouring Swat.
The Taliban, who have recently carved out a safe haven in the northern Swat Valley, are now pushing to seize control of neighboring Buner province, reports Agence France-Presse.

Residents and police officials said a group of some 60 Taliban militants armed with light and heavy weapons managed to cross from Swat and take control of the mountain top in neighbouring Buner district.
More fighting is expected in Buner, reports The Nation, a Pakistani daily.

The situation in Buner is further deteriorating when the Taliban militants have refused to leave the area after killing of four people including three policemen. People from all over scattered areas of Buner particularly from Daggar, Gagra and Gadezai Tehsil are consolidating their positions with a view to forcing the Taliban to return to Swat.
The possible spread of the Taliban out of the Swat Valley highlights the heated debate currently underway between Washington and Islamabad over how best to neutralize the militant group on either side of the Afghan border.

Since August 2008, some 37 predator attacks have killed 360 people along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, according to Agence France-Presse.

But while those attacks may have proved effective in eliminating terrorist targets, they have sowed deep resentment among Pakistani officials and violent responses from the militants themselves.


By the way
take that bird and shove it up your butt


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> And all of this information came from?
> you have links?
> let me add fat and sassy?



I don't know what you are talking about with "fat and sassy", but since you are too lazy to do your own research:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html
How bin Laden got away / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNHBuKbTkCMbA45KIiEjxoaKTYQK5g&cad=rja
U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight (washingtonpost.com)



> Pakistan drone attacks to intensify, Obama officials say - CSMonitor.com
> As Pakistan sharply rebukes United States Predator drone attacks inside Pakistani territory, the Obama administration plans to turn up the number of those attacks in Pakistan's restive tribal belt, according to news reports.



I have no idea what this has to do with the battle of Tora Bora.  Are you incapable of staying on topic?



> By the way
> take that bird and shove it up your butt



You've already said this about three times.


----------



## JRK (Mar 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > And all of this information came from?
> ...



You know I do not know why I allowed this conversation with you to go this far
as far as OBL getting away I still miss your point
If your trying to blame some one that there is murderer loose in a ass backwards country in the desert, you might want to look at the murderer to start with
without him none of this exist, I know as a liberal accountability is a concept you do not understand
This will make it 4 and for the last time
take that bird and shove it up your ass
as soon I get thru with this post you will be on ignore the next time I see that 
you are not too be taken seriously. anyone who goes thru life thinking that is the correct way to be a man either has had everything give to him or is making someones life a living hell
I mean this
Good Luck
being different is one thing, being a dick head is stupid


----------



## Uncle Kenny (Mar 19, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
> 
> Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down.  And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.
> 
> ...



I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama. I was not happy with the decision to stop at liberation at the time, but the cost didn't justify the potential advantage in 1991. Bush Jr. had two additional advantages in going in when he did that made it much more critical and reasonable. 

1st, the Iraqi military was non-existent and the completion could be extremely fast and allow for change of leadership almost immediately. The risk was less therefore making the action more attractive and making the costs less. In 1991 there were still significant military resources to overcome which would have been much slower and more costly in treasure and life. The change of power would also have been even more difficult. 

Consider estimates of an invasion of forces in 1991 would have surpassed the casualty counts for Iraq and Afghanistan to date, in total. Just on the initial conquest of the capital. That would have then touched off a power vacuum at a point when all groups were better armed and prepared.

2nd, When W went in, we needed a battlefield, in 1991 we didn't. After Afghanistan drew almost no visible external support and proved to be inadequate, the idea of a battlefield in Iraq became extremely attractive and valuable. Iraq is a nation that has geographic significance, wealthy resources and an unpopular secular king that was unlikely to justify a mainstream reaction, while almost guaranteeing extremist attention. We chose to fight them there and not here; and Iraq was ideal for that end.

Despite the numerous accused motives, this was the most important motive for the Iraq war. We obviously couldnt state this as a motive, but it is counter-intuitive not to see that this was a highly desirable option given the likelihood of additional foreign attacks.

Of course we would rebuild and establish democratic process and that would have a long term potential benefit for both the U.S. and the theatre, but forcing the bloodshed out of our streets and into another venue was paramount and agree or disagree that was a prime directive for going to war in Iraq that wasn't of consequence in 1991.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 19, 2011)

Hey......you pretty much summed up why Jr. wanted to go into Iraq.

Oil and money.


----------



## Uncle Kenny (Mar 19, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey......you pretty much summed up why Jr. wanted to go into Iraq.
> 
> Oil and money.



If that is what you read, you should probably get some help for that eye issue. Well more help than the pot you have obviously been smoking. Either way, Oil and money were available and not pilfered nearly well enough to justify that line of assertion. Of course it makes for a nice dismissive comment when someone can't come up with anything of actual consequence or insight to say.

Well done

To paraphrase for clarity ( that means here is the short version) we went for reasons of national security (to pre-empt additional domestic attacks, by creating a battlefield that would draw our enemies out in open combat) and for long-term benefits (Middle Eastern democracy, alliance with a critical international region).

Oil and money wouldn't justify the cost, just do the math. We would have had to make Iraq a collony for that to be posible and even then not necessarily probable.


----------



## JRK (Mar 19, 2011)

Uncle Kenny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
> ...



When you refer to a battlefield I assume you mean a place to have it out with the bad guys
I have all ways felt that along with having Iran on both sides, Syria, and The Saudis right next door as part of the reason also
It has great strategic reasons to be there
Good thread


----------



## JRK (Mar 19, 2011)

U.S. to move operations from Saudi base
SAUDI ARABIA  

April 29, 2003|Barbara Starr CNN

The large U.S. military presence at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base is expected to end in the coming months, depending on the security situation in Iraq, U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday.

The decision to move significant U.S. military resources and personnel to neighboring Qatar marks a major shift in U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf region after a longtime presence in Saudi Arabia, currently at about 5,000 troops.  http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-29/...a-prince-sultan-al-udeid-air-base?_s=PM:WORLD *Added Link*

More than 100 aircraft and the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center at the base are expected to make the move, and some of those aircraft could be permanently reassigned to the United States, officials said.

here was another item that never gets discussed 
this base closing and that cost was never put towards a the Iraq war (the savings)
Troops dying has no cost
Saddam and OBL behave, no troops die


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> You know I do not know why I allowed this conversation with you to go this far



You act as if you have any control over what I post.



> as far as OBL getting away I still miss your point



My point is that he got away at Tora Bora.  You seemed ignorant of that fact, so I provided you with educational materials.  



> If your trying to blame some one that there is murderer loose in a ass backwards country in the desert, you might want to look at the murderer to start with



Our plan at Tora Bora was flawed.  I don't blame Bush for the actions of Bin Laden.  I blame Bush and Rumsfield for being naive enough to trust the Pashtuns and not having a better plan.  

Not much though.  Hindsight is 20/20 and at that time, we only had a small contingent of forces in Afghanistan.  



> without him none of this exist, I know as a liberal accountability is a concept you do not understand



Yeah whatever.  Before you start lecturing me on accountability, try and stay on topic in your own thread.  



> This will make it 4 and for the last time
> take that bird and shove it up your ass
> as soon I get thru with this post you will be on ignore the next time I see that



As if I care that you are too chickenshit to defend your own points.  If you want to hide behind a construed sense of outrage over Lenny Bruce shooting the bird that is in my avatar and appears in everyone of my posts, then go for it.  Just don't think anyone is buying your crap.  You and Hipeter will always have each other, I suppose.  



> you are not too be taken seriously. anyone who goes thru life thinking that is the correct way to be a man either has had everything give to him or is making someones life a living hell



Oh, look at you with your goofy attempts at psychoanalysis.  I could give a damn about what your estimations of me and my life are.  If you want to tap out of the debate because you can't hang, don't blame anyone but yourself. 



> I mean this
> Good Luck
> being different is one thing, being a dick head is stupid



And I mean this:  Buy some.....


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

Uncle Kenny said:


> I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and *Afghanistan* as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.



Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?  

In what capacity?


----------



## Uncle Kenny (Mar 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Uncle Kenny said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and *Afghanistan* as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.
> ...



Joint Operations with Pakistani SSG and allied groups. General humanitarian and peacekeeping operations and some other stuff.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 19, 2011)

Uncle Kenny said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Uncle Kenny said:
> ...



I didn't realize we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan at that time.


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 19, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.
> ...


Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.


----------



## geauxtohell (Mar 20, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.



Oh my God.  Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?

"Libertarian" my ass.  I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist.  You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running.  I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?  

You are a fucking shill.

Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?

If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation.  I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman.  I find people like you to be beyond contempt.  It goes way beyond political ideology.  Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader.  You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself.  And why?  Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.  

Welcome to the machine.  If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 20, 2011)

*If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.*

"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: *it was about killing* &#8211; and teaching young men and women to believe that *it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being*, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means. 

"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.

"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that *Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives*, their deaths are *just the cost of doing business*, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."

Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."

Ten Reasons...


----------



## hipeter924 (Mar 20, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.
> ...


I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.

You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope. 

Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either. 

I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.

Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that  has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured  civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or  wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you  hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist  with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right  now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too. 

PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.


----------



## Uncle Kenny (Mar 20, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.*
> 
> "Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: *it was about killing*  and teaching young men and women to believe that *it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being*, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.
> 
> ...



This proves that what you know about soldier mentaility and battlefield psychology wouldn't fill a napkin. As for U.S. military in Iraq this gross generalization and absolute hyperbole is just a plain slander.

The great irony is the incredible level of wartime discretion shown in Iraq, especially as it was only one side attempting to protect human life. Our forces saved thousands of lives at the cost of their own lives in many cases and this is the analasys of their conduct and character? What a load. It was the enemy that targeted civilians and hid amung them and used them as shields, not the coalition. By their tactics they rendered civilians unable to avoid fighting and if you think you would be capable of doing better with the circumstances they created than the young heroes that served there, you are almost certainly wrong.

If you had any personal experience with real violence or combat or even simply the outcome of combat, you would know better than to ever spew this type of garbage. There was real evil being done over there by people who didn't care who died, themselves included. They decapitated people on camera and blew up hospitals, schools, buses and police stations, while we built them. The only thing you learn about violence is how dearly you hope you can get away from it alive and never see it again.


----------



## JRK (Mar 21, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



As a "libertarian" I do not expect anything different, with respect
In a world I live in  that looks for root causes we find 
Without a Saddam we have no issue in Iraq and 
Without 9-11 we probably still have Saddam and those thousands you claim we killed would still be alive
By the way
When is the last time we dropped any bombs in Iraq?
and if we did when is the last time we did that for over 2 days in a row?
I challenge your assertion that we killed all of these civilians with bombs

No terrorist
No Saddam
No OBL
No one dies

Its root cause


----------



## JRK (Apr 5, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Your making all of this way to complicated
If your an atheist, thats for you to die with. If W claimed your an atheist, I never remember him mentioning that, do you have a link?
What is a NZ'ers? I would have issue with a all volunteer military or "serving' as you state it being against a war they volunteered to go fight in, just a thought
Being against the "wars" is your right, hating those that are not  is your right, it just makes you look stupid


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 5, 2011)

Uncle Kenny said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.*
> ...


*You're right about only one thing.*

There was real evil being done "over there" and most of it was done by those who were paid to travel thousands of miles from their home town and kill people who posed no threat to the USA.

Ever wonder why Dick Cheney was so sure Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction? Possibly because when Dick the Draft Dodger was Secretary of Defense he sold Saddam many of those weapons and/or their precursors.

Maybe you are morally bankrupt or ignorant enough to kill for shit like Dick Cheney or support those who do, but you shouldn't conflate your slave-like devotion to power with protecting human life...or courage.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



These were all the mission points made AFTER the fact. Aka the ones that were made up on the spot. Aka moving the goal post.

The INITIAL reason was that Saddam had WMDs and needed to be stopped because he was dangers. The rest were made up in a feeble attempt to save face.

End of story.


----------



## JRK (Apr 5, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Really? do you realize those goals where set by the US congress and the president of the US long before GWB was even president?
My god you guys on the left make this stuff up as you go
Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 17, 2011)

*You guys on the right are still confused about when the Iraq War began.*

"Although Americans often regard March 19 as the day marking the war's beginning, Iraqis, in general, don't think much of that date. 

"From their perspective, the war did not start in March of 2003. 

"As far as Iraqis are concerned, the war began 20 years ago, in *January 1991*, when the bombs started falling on Iraq and continued through the 13 years of sanctions and air strikes, which where followed by eight years of military occupation beginning on April 9, 2003."

If the US reneges on its 2008 agreement to remove all troops (combat and non-combat) from Iraq before December 31, 2011, will you continue to claim the 20 year war was successful?

Playing With Fire in Iraq | Truthout


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple.  There were and still are a great many problems with our involvement in Iraq.  Should we have gone into Iraq to begin with?  With all the information we now have, that answer is an obvious "no".  That being said, we still do not know what the long term impact will be.

One thing I find interesting is the fact that we have begun to see a number of changes in power in the Middle East.  And looking down the road, it is very likely that we will see even more.  And while we have been in fear that the radical right would be the leading movement toward a negative change in the Middle East and Muslim countries, we are beginning to see something a bit different.  Looking at Egypt, Libya, and a few other countries that are showing signs of political unrest in the Muslim world, we are seeing a younger more secular movement coming about.  Now whether or not this holds true long term is hard to say.  But there is a good possibility that a more moderate Muslim voice is beginning to take hold.  If this continues, we could eventually see the same type of change take place in Iran and some of the other more theocratic Muslim states.  

It will be interesting to look back in twenty or thirty years to see how this all unfolds.  It could turn really bad, or it could actually work out that we see a much more secular Muslim world down the road.  Bush could end up receiving credit for putting the wheels in motion.  But at this time, it is just too early to try to predict the outcome.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 17, 2011)

BOOOOOOOOOSH!!!! Oh and that CHAYNEEE too.!! Nuff said.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



A crime that the Dems in congress voted for as well...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 17, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> BOOOOOOOOOSH!!!! Oh and that CHAYNEEE too.!! Nuff said.


Yeah.....how *dare* we _inconvenience_ the *1%ers/high-roller$* over something as _insignificant_ as body-bags*??*







After *all*.....*if the rich-families' kids can't play President*, from-time-to-time, they just might _pull-up-stakes_ & move somewhere-*else!!* 

*






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4]YouTube - Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 17, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


.....*After* the sales-and-marketing folks (at *BUSHCO*) convinced the general-population that if their Reps *didn't* support *War*, those *Vietnamese gun-boats* (that eventually hit-the-beaches, in California, after the fall o' Saigon) would just be a bad-memory. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]YouTube - WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP[/ame]​


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 17, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > BOOOOOOOOOSH!!!! Oh and that CHAYNEEE too.!! Nuff said.
> ...


*Maybe the 1% ers/high roller$ should pay reparations to Iraq?*

Just how many billion$ (trillion$?) in war profits have Halliburton, Bechtel and Boeing made from the war crimes in Iraq?

What is the profit margin on a single Hellfire missile?

Why should corporations and the richest 1% of shareholders profit from killing civilians?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 17, 2011)

Libya.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 17, 2011)

*What's your problem with central bankers?*

"CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, 'Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?  It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.'

"Ellen Brown, author of the terrific  Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, wrote recently about the rebels&#8217; sophisticated financial operations in the following terms:

&#8220;'According to a Russian article titled &#8220;Bombing of Lybia &#8211; Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,&#8221; Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to *refuse the dollar and the euro*, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. 

"'*Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent*, with its 200 million people using this single currency.  During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.  

"'The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.  The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the *financial security of mankind*; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa...'"

CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## JRK (Apr 18, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



To start with your classless
In addition you have no class
I am unsure where you heard the claim there was no WMDs found
thats untrue as this link clearly shows there was, 100s of them that Saddam was to suppose to have destroyed
From the UN'
xclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004
Documents Show That U.N. Inspector Believed Saddam Was Hiding Secret Weapons
UNITED NATIONS  U.N. chief Iraq arms inspector Dr. Hans Blix believed that Baghdad may have been hiding as much as 10,000 liters of deadly anthrax before the U.S.- and British-led coalition invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

According to experts, if properly weaponized, that amount of anthrax could neutralize a city the size of New York.

The admission by Blix was found in a private report sent to the UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Observation and Verification Commission) College of Commissioners just weeks before the invasion. The college is the U.N. body's executive board.

In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.

The private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.

A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.
From the US senate
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
*he 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.*
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
and lets not forget the pre 2004 remarks
Dems on Iraq &#8211; a quote recap « Sister Toldjah
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

Prior Toldjah So posts:


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 18, 2011)

*"George W Bush, March 2002: 'F___ Saddam. we're taking him out.' [CNN]"*

Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception

From Wiki:

"During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting 'proactive' but not always the 'immediate' Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. 

"He concluded that it would take *'but months'* to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] 

"The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] 

"Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] 

"Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] 

"President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was '*the intelligence failure*' in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration '*misrepresented the intelligence* and the threat from Iraq'.[17] 

"A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, 'then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war'"

If the US maintains a military presence in (or over) Iraq after December 31, 2011, will you continue to support killing Iraqi civilians for money?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

No, there weren't WMD's, and no, we didn't get OBL.  

The Iraq war is a failure.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am unsure where you heard the claim there was no WMDs found
> thats untrue as this link clearly shows there was, 100s of them that Saddam was to suppose to have destroyed...



Again.  The Claim was that Iraq was actively producing new stockpiles of Chemcal and biological weapon and actively working on a nuclear bomb.  No such factories or warehouses were ever found after the invasion or occupation.  The only chemical weapons they found were old, not usable, and were from the 1980's war against Iran.


Dems on Iraq  a quote recap « Sister Toldjah
[/QUOTE]

So where in the Clinton liberation of Iraq policy does he plan on using US forces to oust Saddam?

Oh that's he never once considered sending in US troops right? Those plans didn't exist.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

And Libya? I love watching the BDS Wingers whining about DA BOOOOSH while at the same time cheerleading for their Hopey Changey One bombing the shit out of the Libyans. Man,what a bunch of dishonest Dummies.


----------



## JRK (Apr 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am unsure where you heard the claim there was no WMDs found
> ...



So where in the Clinton liberation of Iraq policy does he plan on using US forces to oust Saddam?

Oh that's he never once considered sending in US troops right? Those plans didn't exist.[/QUOTE]

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.


----------



## Antiderivative (Apr 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



You forgot universal HC, passed by the Republicans at the expense of the American tax payer.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> 'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.



Question..........why is it that bat shit crazy Bachmann keeps screaming that we've gotta support Kahdaffy?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

If you support our Government aggressively pushing for Foreign Regime Changes,than you would have to say Iraq is a success. Our Government is currently doing the same thing in Libya. Our Government has also done this many many times in the past. Libya/Iraq? Whats the difference? You can't have it both ways. You want Regime Changes? Well then you're on the same side as those you viciously attack. You may not know it but you are. Some are still just caught up in that 'D' & 'R' Game. They don't even know they're on the same side on issues like this. Oh well,i guess Ignorance really is Bliss.


----------



## JRK (Apr 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > 'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.
> ...



Thats the first I have heard that


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



Really?



> Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is probably going to run for president. As she finds her voice on the national stage, shes showing some skill at delivering nonsense ideas in sentences that, technically, make sense. Take a look.
> * * * *
> 
> Here she is on Fox News last week. (Quote appears in the video at 0:24.)
> ...



Michele Bachmann's Libya Nonsense


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Actually sounds pretty reasonable. I wouldn't call her statements "bat shit crazy" at all. I just don't understand how you can call her "bat shit crazy" over those comments. Is it only because MSLSD & The HuffyPost told you to call her that? I think her comments were very wise & reasonable. Not doing what this President did seems like a very wise thing to me. I still don't understand why we're bombing the Hell out of Libyans. Bachmann is actually right. Hey just my opinion anyway.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.

Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.
> 
> Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?



Yea Iraq had a "No-Fly Zone" too. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that,you have to believe Iraq was a success. They're doing the very same thing in Libya as we speak. I see lots of posters on this Board cheerleading for this Libyan War on a daily basis. Unfortunately most are so caught up in that old 'D' & 'R' Game,they don't even realize they're actually on the same side as those they enjoy viciously attacking. Oh well like i said,ignorance really is Bliss.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.
> ...



Iraq was a failure, because not only were we lied to about the reasons we needed to go into Iraq, but Halliburton and KBR helped out by building showers in the green zone barracks that electrocuted 40 some odd soldiers, throwing obscene amounts of money into a place where the perpetrator of 9/11 WAS NOT IN!

Libya was a humanitarian mission because Qaddafy was killing his own people with cluster munitions and torture.

Iraq was for oil, no other reason.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

Yea and this Libyan War has nothing to do with Oil. Man,so many are just so willing to believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that policy,Iraq and Libya will have to be considered successes. There is no real disagreement here. All Foreign Interventionists should be jumping for joy over this stuff. For everyone else it just Sucks though.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> 'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.



Regime change by supporting opposition groups not a military invasion, occupation and nation building.  That is not a success for us or them.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

Iraq/Libya? It's just so hilarious watching people try and spin how they're supposedly so different. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you believe in that stuff,than yes Iraq & Libya could be called successes. Although the Libyan War has not yet been resolved,it does look like getting rid of Gaddafi is the goal. So we'll have to wait a bit longer to see how that Regime Change War works out. Some really are just so blinded by that 'D' & 'R' political thing that they don't even know they're on the same side as those they viciously attack. It really is convenient ignorance.


----------



## JRK (Apr 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



who lied?
no one lied
Saddam was told to clean up 100% or else in 1992
There where over 500 munitions found with banned substances in the war heads found
1000s of pounds of anthrax that was never found
Halliburton is KBR and you got a link to back that bull shit up with?
And I do not recall anyone saying that OBL was in Iraq after 9-11, you got a link to back that one up?
We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein lied. there is more history on this, but you Libs just want to keep lying
Do you numbskull's realize we have a all volunteer military?
you keep talking shit about an event we keep getting good kids who think enough about it to keep going  
You dis agree with going to war is your right
you lying about it to justify that feeling is being a liberal, and I feel sorry for you


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> Thats the first I have heard that



That's because he just made it up, right now.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 18, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Here she is on Fox News last week. (Quote appears in the video at 0:24.)
> 
> I would not have done what the president did in Libya. I would not have intervened now at this time. We dont even know who the opposition forces are. We dont know if the opposition is being pushed by Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq. That could be a far worse outcome than dealing with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is not necessarily been the best friend of the United States, but in some ways hes been neutralized.



Michele Bachmann's Libya Nonsense[/QUOTE]

So she makes perfect sense and you are as stupid as a stump?

I think everyone already knew this.


----------



## JRK (Apr 18, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I am not sure anyone but you are stating that Saddam did
You liberals keep telling this story over and over

Where do you want to start?
9-11?
So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers. 


A mural at an Iraqi military base appears to celebrate 9/11.
Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. Thats one clear link to al-Qaeda.  


1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin 
in a State Department "Wanted" poster
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir  an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampurs airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standards Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. 19




9/11 hijackers Nawaz al Hamzi and Khalid al Midhar  
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people. 


A security camera captures the impact of  
American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon  


Firefighters try to control the flames engulfing 
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and Operation Bojinka, al-Qaedas 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen. 20

there is more information on this link than you care to read my friend
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
You liberals act as though, never mind
Its like i stated earlier
you sit around and lie while an all volunteer army is still signing up to kick there ass


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 18, 2011)

*We could start by asking how many US children Saddam killed.*

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than *46,900 children* died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931&#8211;6.)"

MMS: Error


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

Is a 'Regime Change' Policy a just policy? Americans really need to think more about if it's right for our Nation to go all around the World picking & choosing who stays in power or is removed. Personally,i don't support this policy. Libya/Iraq? There is no difference. Some are desperately trying to convince themselves that there is a difference but there just isn't. Do you support Regime Change as a Foreign Policy or not? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## idb (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Is a 'Regime Change' Policy a just policy? Americans really need to think more about if it's right for our Nation to go all around the World picking & choosing who stays in power or is removed. Personally,i don't support this policy. Libya/Iraq? There is no difference. Some are desperately trying to convince themselves that there is a difference but there just isn't. Do you support Regime Change as a Foreign Policy or not? You can't have it both ways.



Foreign policy can't be simply black or white.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 18, 2011)

*"EVIDENCE IS now in* that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'&#8217; in Benghazi, Libya&#8217;s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."

Imagine.

A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.

False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *"EVIDENCE IS now in* that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'&#8217; in Benghazi, Libya&#8217;s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
> 
> "But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."
> 
> ...



This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.


----------



## idb (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *"EVIDENCE IS now in* that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath' in Benghazi, Libyas second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
> ...



How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

idb said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.


----------



## idb (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.

Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 18, 2011)

idb said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Our Government supports Regime Change in Libya. And so do the Western Europeans. And they're also arming and training the rebels. That goes along with their bombing & killing Libyans on behalf of the rebels. There is nothing "Humanitarian" about this War. That's just more lies.


----------



## idb (Apr 18, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



Fine...can't believe anything the Government says...I can't argue with that.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 19, 2011)

Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.

Then there's the long arm of central bankers:

"Another provocative bit of data circulating on the net is a 2007 Democracy Now! interview of US Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about *ten days after September 11, 2001*, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. 'I don't know!' was the response. '*I guess they don't know what else to do!*' 

"Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: *Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran*.

"What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.

*"The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq*, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted, 'ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency and its dominion as the petrodollar.'"

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking? | Truthout

Oil or banking or some combination thereof, one thing that's certain is that there would be no war in Iraq or Libya unless it was making a few rich parasites even richer.

War is a Racket


----------



## JRK (Apr 19, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.
> 
> Then there's the long arm of central bankers:
> 
> ...




How is the war in Iraq made anyone richer?
I will give you KBR and that bunch made very little money, not worth a war
Profitless Profiteering
Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq?
By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 3:47 PM ET
Is it war profiteering if you barely make a profit on your war work?

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
REPRINTS
SINGLE PAGE
In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraqeverything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.
But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
Advertisement

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its ownhigher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated pricesnot to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.
When you're a logistics companyand one working on a 1 percent profit margininefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.
According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 milliona 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 milliona 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
KBR is now under criminal investigation by the Pentagon over claims it overcharged for fuel delivered from Kuwait. The Pentagon is also looking into dining-hall contracts allegedly awarded without competitive bids. And annoyed at repeated billing screw-ups, the Pentagon is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to KBR. Any of these conflicts could further erode KBR's margins.
KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contractsyet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home aboutand they're certainly not worth starting a war over.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 19, 2011)

From a historical perspective war has always been far more profitable than your 2004 post claims.

Starting from "The War to End All Wars"...

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits &#8211; ah! that is another matter &#8211; twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent &#8211; the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. *Uncle Sam has the money*. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about *patriotism, love of country*, and 'we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,' but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket &#8211; and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

"*Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people* &#8211; didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? 

"How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. *An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent*.

"Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump &#8211; or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

"Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad."

"There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. *That always does well in war times*.

"Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

"Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

"Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

"A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

"Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather..."

THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE.


----------



## JRK (Apr 19, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> From a historical perspective war has always been far more profitable than your 2004 post claims.
> 
> Starting from "The War to End All Wars"...
> 
> ...



The Duponts?
How much wealth did Halliburton and KBR lose to the stock market crash, post 9-11?
billions OF CAP?
For a few millions of profit?


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Apparently you are.  None of those were the reasons Dubya and Cheney invaded Iraq.  Good shot at revisionist history though.


----------



## JRK (Apr 19, 2011)

beowolfe said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



really?
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.
you want to try that again?
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The liberal should be held in account for these lies


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> really?
> 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.
> you want to try that again?



That's irrelevant because BUUUUSSSSHHHHH - we hates him, we HATES him - BOOOOOOSSSHSHSHSHSH


Leftism is a mental disorder.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 19, 2011)

Considering how fucked up Iraq is, I'm surprised anyone would consider it a win.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 19, 2011)

Failure?

We trust the government more now since they were open and honest about their reasons for going.

We could easily afford it, we have no fiscal problems here at home.

Nobody died on either side on a false premise.

Iraqis have full confidence in the new government, an example of us spreading islam by putting it right in their constitution.

Public Opinion In Iraq: Pessimism, Poor Services and Ayad Allawi - FEATURES - Current Intelligence

"A new poll of Iraqi public opinion released by the International Republican Institute (IRI) yields three significant findings: a majority of Iraqis are now pessimistic about their country&#8217;s future, the provision of basic services is a bigger challenge than security, and Ayad Allawi must be part of a new government."

I can't think of a single negative.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 19, 2011)

How about the fact that the cost of the war was left off the books?  How about the fact that we were LIED TO  by the last admin after 9/11, with them telling us that Saddam had helped out?

No.  Iraq was a failure.


----------



## beowolfe (Apr 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



How quickly we forget:



> The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
> 
> 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."
> ...



BTW, the Iraqi LIberation Act of 1998 did not authorize war.  And to be honest, the entire outrage about Iraq invading Kuwait was a red herring.  Iraq was a US ally at the time.  SH had gotten the okay to move into Kuwait from the US ambassador to Iraq.  He asked our permission and was given the go-ahead by the ambassador who didn't check with DC before giving the okay.  In all probability, the ambassador probably didn't even have a clue what was being asked.  And that's what we get for assigning people to posts where they don't have a background sufficient to allow them to understand what the other side is talking about.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 19, 2011)

beowolfe said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



April Glaspie was in the United States foreign service for over 20 years.  She was not one of the lacky type GHWB's son was so fond of appointing.  No this was a concerted effort to snooker Saddam into the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.  That way Sr. President Bush had a new enemy to replace the old USSR and it gave him a reason to not make the cuts being called for in the military.

"The cables that Glaspie sent from Iraq about her meeting with Saddam are no longer classified.[5] Glaspie's cable on her meeting with Saddam reports that President George H.W. Bush "had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq." Saddam, in turn, offered "warm greetings" to Bush and was "surely sincere" about not wanting war, the cable said."

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 19, 2011)

beowolfe said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



No.......AQ wasn't in Iraq initially.  Wanna know why?  Saddam kept them out of his country.

No........it's been proven that the information for the WMD's was actually from an Islamic national, who has now stated publicly that he LIED.

Wrong.  Bush's mishandling of it turned it into a failure.


----------



## JRK (Apr 19, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Failure?
> 
> We trust the government more now since they were open and honest about their reasons for going.
> 
> ...



Dr dock answer me one question
if your polls are correct, then why is it our all volunteer army has no problem finding recruits?
War sucks
9-11 sucked
Saddam acting like an idiot after 9-11 sucked
Why is it the left in this country acts as though this event just started one day
There was 18 months of time from 9-11 thru March 2003

You know what straw broke he camels back?
The UN and Anthrax
This event is what led to the invasion
lix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003

I*raq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.*
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "*Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".*
*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.*
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."


----------



## idb (Apr 19, 2011)

It depends against what benchmark it is judged.
If the point of it was to secure oil supplies then I guess "Mission Accomplished".

If it is judged against the publicly stated premises and planned outcomes prior to the invasion then it has been an abject failure.

If, however, it is judged against the new goals that were put forward part way through the campaign when the failure of the original goals were evident then...maybe it has been successful.


----------



## JRK (Apr 19, 2011)

idb said:


> It depends against what benchmark it is judged.
> If the point of it was to secure oil supplies then I guess "Mission Accomplished".
> 
> If it is judged against the publicly stated premises and planned outcomes prior to the invasion then it has been an abject failure.
> ...



I will give you points for being rational
One of the original goals was to
Remove Saddam
Install a republic

Read it for your self

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

*Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;*

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

*Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
*
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order 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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721]

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


----------



## idb (Apr 19, 2011)

> Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
> 
> Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
> 
> ...





> Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
> 
> Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
> 
> ...



You're right, the stated aim in the resolution to get rid of the regime was successful, but many of the reasons have proved to be false and the aftermath hasn't really gone to plan has it?


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > From a historical perspective war has always been far more profitable than your 2004 post claims.
> ...


*Got a current link for those "few million$ of profits?"*

*"The first name that comes to everyone&#8217;s mind* here is Halliburton. 

"According to MSN Money, Halliburton&#8217;s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of *$17.2 billion* in Iraq war-related revenue from *2003-2006 alone*. 

"This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBR&#8217;s total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year. 

"The massive payoff is said to have financed the construction and maintenance of military bases, oil field repairs, and various infrastructure rebuilding projects across the war-torn nation. 

"This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheney&#8217;s former role with the parent company."

The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers | Business Pundit


----------



## JRK (Apr 20, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



So this 17 billion dollar event with 3% profit and like it or not created 1000s of jobs from a company who is in business to do just what they did here as they have for clinton and Obama fits in where as it relates to GM and there 50-60-70 billion dollar tax payer funded slush, You liberals amaze me

Why the need to go to war?
Hell Chrysler got that much by just showing up


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 21, 2011)

*While conservatives are always ready to kill children for money.*

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. 

"We estimate that an excess of more than *46,900 children* died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931&#8211;6.)"

MMS: Error

*How many children would you kill for $510,000,000 in profit?*


----------



## JRK (Apr 21, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *While conservatives are always ready to kill children for money.*
> 
> "These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age.
> 
> ...



And how is that Clinton's fault?
and what does 510 million dollars have to do with Saddam's behavior?
t any time Saddam could have done the right thing ]
On a side note, starving anyone is beyond a place I think is acceptable, i also find it more tragic when it is spun into something that its intent is political
this country with tax payer dollars has feed, clothed and cared for millions over the years. Get your head out of your ass and stop drinking the kool-aid


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.
> ...




Yet within about a year after that we see:

In 1 year, Halliburton's stock doubles as troop deaths double 
20 Sept. 2005

Halliburton Watch

Halliburton's CEO also enjoyed an incredible personal gain from Iraq and the commensurate rise in gasoline prices. A HalliburtonWatch analysis reveals that CEO David Lesar's stock holdings in Halliburton increased by a stunning $78 million since the Iraq invasion.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *While conservatives are always ready to kill children for money.*
> ...


*Maybe you should stop shilling for war criminals.*

*"1992*

"Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world. 

"Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.2

*1995*

"Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world. 

"He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000. 

"Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously. 

"Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.3 Halliburton's overseas operations go from 51% to 68% of its revenue. 

"According to the Center for Public Integrity,4 under Cheney's leadership the company also receives $1.5 billion worth of assistance from government-sponsored agencies such as OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Export-Import Bank, a huge increase compared to the $100 million that the company had received in federal loans and guarantees in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival. 

"Years later, during the 2000 campaign in a broadcasted vice presidential candidates' debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that 'the government has absolutely nothing to do' with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.5 

"Halliburton *pleads guilty* to criminal charges of violating a U.S. ban on exports to Libya by *selling Col. Qaddafi* six pulse neutron generators, devices that can be used to *detonate nuclear weapons*.6 

"Halliburton pays a $3.8 million penalty to settle alleged violations of the U.S. trade ban."

Halliburton Watch


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 21, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> 
> How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?



Do libs ever tire of making up phony statistics?


----------



## JRK (Apr 21, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Looks like Cheney did a good job as the Chairman
whats your feeling on giving wealth away?
I mean at least Halliburton earned theres
GM just, well they did nothing
and do not was tee your breath with there paying us back


----------



## JRK (Apr 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...



Thats a sad thing to lie that bad
1) terrorist killed Iraqi civilians
2) We killed the terrorist 

US drones killed 957 Pakistani civilians in 2010 | NWO Observer


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 22, 2011)

*Do you mean terrorists like that "stressed-out Marine in a Fallujah mosque?"*

*"But even as the killing of a single Iraqi*, purported to be an insurgent, in a Fallujah mosque dominated almost a week of U.S. media coverage, the claim in the report in the respected British medical journal Lancet that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as *98,000 *rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data &#8212; the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths. 

"The Economist recently provided its own, more conservative estimate: *40,000 civilians dead*.

"A significantly lower total is reported by the organization Iraq Bodycount, which has tabulated news reports that show a total of around *15,000 civilian casualties* since the war began. 

"Even if that lower total was accurate, it suggests that Iraq has suffered at least five times the impact of 9/11 &#8212; and the fact that its population is one tenth that of the U.S. would magnify the impact to more like *50 times that of 9/11*."

Iraq Civilian Casualties? Who Knew? - TIME


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *Do you mean terrorists like that "stressed-out Marine in a Fallujah mosque?"*
> 
> *"But even as the killing of a single Iraqi*, purported to be an insurgent, in a Fallujah mosque dominated almost a week of U.S. media coverage, the claim in the report in the respected British medical journal Lancet that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as *98,000 *rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data  the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths.
> 
> ...



To start with if you have no terrorist you would have no casualties
Saddam does the right thing
same
and
the coalition had little to do with those casualties
They killed those who where creating those casualties
Tell a lie enough it becomes fact

Now you cannot lie
the war in Iraq is over for us
we did what we said we would do
The casualties continue as a country is re born and the terrorist cannot stand it


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 25, 2011)

*Define "terrorism"*

According to army manuals and the US Code, terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other (think economic) aims.

By that definition, the Marine in the mosque and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq qualify as acts of terror.

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1 is done

2 not quite yet

3 only the future will tell.

So in reality you are 1 for 3.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
> ...



WOW! rewrite history much?? 

Inspectors were in iraq on the ground doing their jobs. W decided to go against the UN and told the inspectors to leave as he invaded a country claiming that they violated a UN resolution, which should be a call made by the UN, even as W went against the UN to invade. 


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP)  In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday. 
USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



3 is done also

After an invasion led by American and British forces, the Ba'ath Party was removed from power and Iraq came under a military occupation by a multinational coalition. Sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government in June 2004. A new constitution was then approved by referendum and a new Government of Iraq was elected. Foreign troops remained in Iraq after the establishment of a new government due to an insurgency that developed shortly after the invasion, with violence peaking in mid 2007. In August 2010 the U.S. became the last member of the coalition to cease combat operations in Iraq. 50,000 US troops remain in the country in an advisory role; their full withdrawal mandated by 31 December 2011.[6]


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > 1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
> ...



So because we don't know that must mean that he was involved?? Got it.



JRK said:


> 2) why would you say that?



Drock can give his argument on that.



JRK said:


> 3) Thats an opinion



isn't that what you are expressing?? 



JRK said:


> 4) Saddam killed those people



So saddam invaded his own country with US forces and used out miltary both air and ground to kill innocent people even after his death?? WOW!



JRK said:


> 5) Thats the will of the Iraqi people



Uh ok. LOL 



JRK said:


> 6) Iraqi war/Failed stimulus, same cost. That does not include many un-knowns that the Iraqi war may of off-set



HUH?? do you actually believe that you are making any sense? What can the COST of a war offset?? 



JRK said:


> 7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN



Really?? Yet one of the primary claims of the right was that we invaded because they violated un resolutions. So thank you for admitting that one of the reasons for the invasion was BS. LOL


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



rewriting history huh?
this is the event that lead to the invasion
Saddam lied to much
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
*Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.*
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
*Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".*
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, *adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".*
*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.*
*He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.*
*He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.*
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

*thats from the UN 6 weeks prior to your invasion*


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



So does that also apply to obama and the terrorist supporting state of libya or do you only apply this defense to rightwing presidents??


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 25, 2011)

*Iraq is now the third most corrupt country in the world *Iraq is now the third most corrupt country in the world


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yes you did try to rewrite history and apparently lack the ability to follow time and a simple discussion. 

Fact is that inspectors were on the ground bush told them to leave BEFORE they had finished their job as he went against the UN to attack iraq fior violating a UN resolution. 
So what was going on at the time bush invaded?? Why go back "6 weeks prior" to when we know what was going on at that time? 

BTW is there a link in there anywhere?? 

Furthermore, do you actually believe if you ignore FACTS that they will just go away??


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



1) the war and the cost of the war is really unknown, at best 1.5 trillion over years. about the same as Obama's failed stimulus if you add his part of tarp to it
Remember the troops are some were no matter 
getting paid
eating
sleeping riding
flying
etc....
2) Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
IRAQ  

October 11, 2002

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

3&4 do not exist without 9-11, Saddam and 1991 Saddam. thats not our fault
Saddam had ample time to do the right thing

5)  *Timeline: Iraq votes on new government
*
Tweet
Share this
inShare
Digg
Email
Print
Related News
Iraq approves new government with Maliki as PM
Tue, Dec 21 2010
Infighting delays Iraqi government formation
Mon, Dec 20 2010
Foreign troop death toll in Afghanistan in 2010 nears 700
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Iraq to unveil new government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Maliki to name Iraq government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Related Topics
World »
BAGHDAD | Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:55am EST
(Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a new government on Tuesday, nine months after an inconclusive election left politics in limbo and delayed investments to rebuild the country after years of war [ID:nLDE6BK12I].

Here are some key events since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

March 20, 2003 - U.S. and British forces invade from Kuwait.

April 9 - U.S. troops take Baghdad, Saddam disappears.

July 13 - The Iraqi Governing Council -- 25 Iraqis chosen under U.S. supervision -- holds inaugural meeting in Baghdad.

August 19 - Suicide truck bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad kills 22 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

December 13 - U.S. troops capture Saddam near Tikrit. U.S. governor of Iraq Paul Bremer breaks news with: "We got him."

March 8, 2004 - Governing Council signs interim constitution.

June 1 - Governing Council dissolved to make way for interim government led by Iyad Allawi. Ghazi al-Yawar named president.

June 28 - United States formally returns sovereignty. Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved. Bremer leaves Iraq.

January 30, 2005 - Shi'ite-led United Iraqi Alliance dominates vote for local council and interim parliament. Most Sunnis do not vote.

March 16 - National Assembly holds first meeting.

October 15 - Referendum ratifies constitution despite Sunni Arab opposition.

December 15 - Parliamentary election. More Sunnis vote this time than in the January election.

February 10, 2006 - Final results give Shi'ite-led UIA near majority with 128 seats. Sunni Arabs have 58 and Kurds 53.

February 22 - Bombing of Shi'ite shrine in Samarra sparks widespread sectarian violence, raising fears of civil war.

November 5 - A Baghdad court finds Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity. He is executed on December 30.

June 15, 2007 - U.S. military says it has completed its troop build-up, or "surge," to 160,000 soldiers to quell violence.

August 14 - Truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq kill more than 400 people -- the deadliest militant attacks in Iraq since 2003.

January 12, 2008 - Parliament votes for junior members of Saddam's Baath Party to return to government jobs, a key to reconciliation.

July 19 - Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc rejoins the government when parliament approves its candidates for ministerial posts.

November 17 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011.

January 1, 2009 - U.S.-Iraq security pact comes into force, placing the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops under Iraqi authority.

January 31 - Iraq holds provincial elections, the most peaceful vote since the fall of Saddam, demonstrating big security gains. Maliki's nationalist coalition scores big victory at the expense of sectarian and federalist parties.

February 27 - U.S. President Barack Obama announces plan to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq by August 31, 2010. He makes an unannounced visit to Baghdad on April 7.

December 8 - Iraq sets March 7, 2010 as the long awaited date for a general election, hours after at least 112 people are killed when bombers strike government buildings in Baghdad.

March 7, 2010 - Parliamentary elections.

May 10 - At least 125 are killed in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country by suspected Sunni Islamists.

May 16 - Iyad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition wins 91 seats in the March 7 elections. Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law bloc is second with 89 seats.

August 7 - The U.S. 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last brigade mainly focused on combat, hands over to Iraqi forces.

November 11 - Incumbent Prime Minister Maliki's Shi'ite-led alliance will get the prime minister post, guaranteeing him a second term, while minority Kurds are to keep the presidency after Iraq's main factions agree on the top three political posts, ending an eight-month deadlock after the March elections.

December 21 - Parliament approves Maliki's new 42-strong cabinet list, which includes the appointment of outgoing Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani as deputy prime minister for energy and outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Esawi as finance minister. Hoshiyar Zebari is reappointed foreign minister.

6) in 2007 we where *within 150 billion of breaking even, the war in Iraq was at its peak*
we went over budget from 03-08 less than 2 trillion
from 09-10 it was over 3 trillion


----------



## slukasiewski (Apr 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Obama's illegal war. Why don't you enlist.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.
> ...




Did you bother reading your own quote??

(1) strictly enforce *through the United Nations Security Council* all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action *by the Security Council *to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy "


Both one and two state that the president had to go through the UN security council and he bypassed it and chose to invade anyway.

Next!


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Thanks for the spam you be sure and let me know when you want to talk about what I actually said. LOL


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


Yes I do
do you read what the UN wrote Jan 2003?


*Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.*
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
*Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".*
I*raq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.*
*He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.*
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
*Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.*
*Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.*
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

Now this would be year 12
and would be 18 months after GWB told Saddam to do the right thing or else
How you interpret that UN statement and how GWB and I did is just that
an interpretation

if you really think there is a passage in that document that states GWB needed the permission of the UN to invade
we are at a place we need to move on from

The notice, not permission


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 25, 2011)

So what?  Blix could have come back and said he found an underground city that was manufactoring Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons and the UNSC would still have had to authorized use of force (Or Iraq would have had to attack a member state).

http://www.grassrootspeace.org/scr1441hurd.doc

SCR 687 (2 April 1991) established the ceasefire terms.  It stated that once Iraq officially notified the Secretary-General and the Council that Iraq accepted SCR 687&#8217;s provisions, then an official ceasefire would be in effect between Iraq and Kuwait/cooperating member states acting as SCR 678 authorized.   Iraq&#8217;s only ceasefire obligation was official notification.  SCR 687 contains no other ceasefire conditions.  Iraq officially notified the required parties on 6 April 1991.   Since then, a ceasefire has been in effect.  

SCR 687 details Iraq&#8217;s forthgoing non-conventional disarmament &#8220;obligations&#8221;.  These &#8220;obligations&#8221; were not ceasefire conditions.  Rather, they were actions, in addition to the ceasefire term, that the Council required Iraq to take in the name of &#8220;international peace and security&#8221;.  Because Iraq has not gained Council &#8220;...agreement that Iraq has completed all [relevant] actions&#8221;,  the Council has continued to remain &#8220;seized&#8221; of Iraq as an &#8220;international peace and security issue&#8221;.  Nevertheless, Council authorization for member states to use against Iraq ended with the ceasefire.  Member states would have had continued force authorization only if Iraq had failed to execute its ceasefire obligation. 


3.  	How the US Might Use SCR 1441 to Domestically and Internationally Justify Using Force Against Iraq

There are many possibilities.  This document below focuses on three.  The possibility presented in Section 3(iii) focuses on what might be the most important paragraphs in SCR 1441.

(i) 	US Officials might continue to ignore the 1991 ceasefire and UN Charter, and   incorrectly interpret SCR 1441 warning language.

The context for SCR 1441 is the UN Charter and its use of force provisions, along with the 1991 ceasefire.  Iraq has not attacked a member state since it invaded Kuwait.  Since the SCR 678 authorization and later ceasefire that ended the authorization, the Council has not authorized member states to use force against Iraq.  In SCR 678 the Council &#8220;...[a]uthorize[d] Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means...to restore international peace and security in the area&#8221;.   Notably, the 2 October US/UK SCR draft proposed that a &#8220;further material breach of Iraq's obligations...authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area&#8221;.   SCR 1441 on the other hand contains no &#8220;all necessary means&#8221; language, or, for that matter, any text which authorizes member states to use force against Iraq.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



You really need to learn to read, follow a conversation and stop spamming. I merely quoted what the previous poster quoted only I focused on the fact that it states that bush had to go THROUGH the UN security council to enforce their resolutions.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the poster who originally posted it. 

However, if it did state that he had to go through the UN to enforce their resolutions and W sidestepped that part of the process that would make his actions a violation of H.J.Res. 114 and therefore illegal.


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



stabilized the country6 ? really ? 
 we invaded a sovereign country for no reason at all , not to save lives from a nut job killing his own people .no .

not from WMDs which we gave them but never found . 

your number 3 is just stupid .


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



How stable would you call the United States if you read the NY times and every day it said "120 people killed in the US last night with knives, guns, chocking, etc...."
every day
Its about right


----------



## Shooter (Apr 25, 2011)

> Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?



Honestly?  Because Bush had a "R" next to his name.  If it would have been Obama in charge most of the Democrats would be cheering and claiming it to be a huge success.

I really hate partisan politics.  It's very childish and immature.  To constantly attack someone just because of their political affiliation is juvenile.  Why are there so few people out there that look at the situation itself as opposed to allowing yourself to be blindly led around by the nose of a political party?  Does no one use their head anymore?  Is it really all about just defending the base whether it's right or wrong?

I despise partisan politics.  I could care less about it.  I don't give a hairy fuck about whether or not someone has a "R" or "D" in front of their name.  You have to look at the situation itself and use your head without bias.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

Looks like Iraq was way ahead of its time. The Tyrants are dropping like flys all over the Middle East. So say what you want about Iraq,but they really were the first domino to fall. And to all you pious & supposed "Anti-War" Lefty Wingers,just hop off your high horses because your carpet bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi is no different than what was done in Iraq. Lefty Wingers may try to spin that their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. Iraq really was the first domino to fall. So going by those standards,Iraq would have to be called a success.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.
> ...



I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL 

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



sounds like st. louis . 

but theses are criminal acts , iraq has ethnic murders going on still . how many car bombs have we had here in the states last year or the year before


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

oh ya how stable would I call the US ? not vary we hate each other here , neighbors refusing to help others , repigs lying about everything , Dem's lying as much . 
teabaggers wanting to destroy our educational system . medicare and all social programs . 

jobs moving over seas at the same rate as bush had them move . 

did I mention we hate each other ? the united part is gone its just America now . 
no we're not stable .


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

Iraq was the first domino to fall. This just can't be denied. So many could deem it a success. And guess what,this current Libyan War is not different than Iraq. I know the usual suspects are trying to claim their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. I'm certainly no Neocon or Socialist/Progressive and i do oppose aggressive Foreign Interventionism. But the dominoes are falling in the Middle East. The Tyrants are dropping like flies. So i can see why Neocons & Socialists/Progressives argue for aggressive Foreign Interventionism. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out though. Not sure if all this will be good or bad for the U.S. Time will tell i guess.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



If that is how you want to work this then who helped saddam during the iran-iraq war?? Who and which president supported him and helped him out??

I will give you a hint that will give you a good idea.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8]YouTube - Rumsfeld & Saddam Make Nice[/ame]


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the intel for Iraq was made up.  Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.
> ...



So those old and rusted out munitions are evidence of an ongoing program with mobile weapons labs, multiple facilities, alluminum tubes as centrifuges and yellowcake from niger?? Really?? 

abiker correctly points out that most of the intel about iraq was made up (curveball) and was completely unreliable and you go to posting crap about weapons that were apparently lost in the desert and could no longer function as originally intended and could only be fatal with prolonged exposure as a counter to what abiker said??

You seem to be the one posting proof positive that you are braindead seeing as how you continue to spam the boards with the same moronic bs that has already been responded to and addressed a thousand times over.


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



on a teabaggers point of view it was to costly in money . 
not worth the cost . 
as for hate America ? LOL you sure do .

bush is ok but he did terrible things to our country in reputation money , troops lives , economy and more . but he s a nice guy . just s stupid republican .
hey like you .


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 25, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Looks like Iraq was way ahead of its time. The Tyrants are dropping like flys all over the Middle East. So say what you want about Iraq,but they really were the first domino to fall. And to all you pious & supposed "Anti-War" Lefty Wingers,just hop off your high horses because your carpet bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi is no different than what was done in Iraq. Lefty Wingers may try to spin that their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. Iraq really was the first domino to fall. So going by those standards,Iraq would have to be called a success.



So tell me how was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq the equavlance of the popular uprisings going on in other countries?


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I wrote a thread just about people like you
GWB reputation has what to do with the success we had in Iraq?
The troops volunteered to be there thru the end
The economy did great thru the 1st 1/2 2008
thru 2 recessions
2 stock market crashes
9-11
2 wars
6 major hurricanes including katrina
etc...
etc...
etc...

you do not want to list the reasons you feel we should not have went
why?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Uh in case you missed it W told the inspectors, who were on the ground in march doing their jobs, to leave because he was going to invade. 

He didn't let the inspectors finish their job and you have the nerve to ask "Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?"

BTW it would be nice if you provided the FULL quote

"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity," he said.

How about later than feb?? Didn't he release a report in march as well?? Why no quotes from that??


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Dan took one for the team obviously.  The story about the special treatment President Bush reveiced getting in and through out his guard service(ignoring his AWOL status), not reporting for duty....ect and so on...all morphed into the Dan used a forged document story even though document was used to prove a single minor point.  It's all about Dan.....

Dan's not going to give you the truth, he'll tell you the President's head shot violently forward after the fatal head wound.  And since he saw the only movie of it, the nation beleived it, for a while.....


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



The left amazes me
to question any news organization or web site as though ABC or MSNBC is such a better and more accurate source


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, it's from the Freepers!  That's much better than tommyduggan.com! )
> ...



Well that makes it a 1/2 times more truthful than what you post.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > The dead would call it a failure. The children without parents would call it a failure. The maimed would call it a failure. And if we are so callous we ignore the unnecessary deaths, our entire society materially would call it a failure for its great waste.
> ...



Most of your threads link to blogs and op-eds which are based on other peoples OPINIONS. Every debate that you have started is about debating OPINIONS. To try and claim otherwise is beyond absurd.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You do realize that throughout the 80s and the iran-iraq war reagan's administration was offering support to saddam's iraq don't you?  So based on your so-called logic if reagan had stayed out of it and allowed iran to defeat iraq saddam wouldn't have been a problem.


----------



## initforme (Apr 25, 2011)

I say we pull out all troops out of iraq right now cold turkey.  If the country gets taken over by whoever so be it.  If those people cant stand up for themselves then they DONT WANT FREEDOM.   Secondly, Afghanistan.  UNWINNABLE.  What are we fighting for?  Cant answer that one can you?   
Libya?   Again, what are we fighting for?   
I will PROUDLY SAY IT...all three of these endeavors are/were unnecessary.   Since the iraq war I have not flown my flag.....makes me a bad guy doesnt it?   Yes I am PROUD of it.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

Iraq was the first domino to fall. This just can't be denied. The rest are now following. And Libya is no different than Iraq. I know the usual suspects keep trying to spin their Libyan War as being so different but it just isn't. Bombing & Killing is Bombing & Killing. Now Gaddafi must go? Yes,and now we're sending our drones in to kill him and his family. So hop off your high horses people. Libya is Iraq. Stop kidding yourselves.


----------



## JRK (Apr 25, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Iraq was the first domino to fall. This just can't be denied. The rest are now following. And Libya is no different than Iraq. I know the usual suspects keep trying to spin their Libyan War as being so different but it just isn't. Bombing & Killing is Bombing & Killing. Now Gaddafi must go? Yes,and now we're sending our drones in to kill him and his family. So hop off your high horses people. Libya is Iraq. Stop kidding yourselves.



I truly believe that W did a much better job in Iraq
as has been stated many times here by the left
Obama is doing just that
run him off or kill him and do not worry about the outcome

Look at how many civilians Obama has killed in Pakistan


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

Yea it's so bizarre watching people spinning so-called differences between Iraq & Libya. The only difference is that one had an 'R' by his name and the other has a 'D' by his. They want Gaddafi and his family dead. And now they're sending drones in to do this. So people really do need to hop off their high horses on this stuff. If you're cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his family,you have no right to pretend you're somehow better than those you demonize. In fact those who supported the Iraq War also support this Libyan War. They are actually more honest than those who supposedly opposed the Iraq War but are now big cheerleaders for this Libyan War. Hey just my observations anyway.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 25, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs,



You mean someone like George Phillips, shit fer brains?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

If you're cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his Family,you have no right to think you're any better than those who supported the Iraq War. If you think you're better,you really are only deluding yourself.


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> If you're cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his Family,you have no right to think you're any better than those who supported the Iraq War. If you think you're better,you really are only deluding yourself.



your right , why should we protect human lives ? if a dictator wants to kill his own people ? let him their his . 
 as for his family ? who want to kill his family ? oh ya his son ,. but his sons as bad as he is . but really we should just let those people make it or lose on their own . 

Iraq did nothing to us , had nothing to do with any attacks . yet look what the republican did and cost . not just in human life not just in American life , but money ! 
 they still are using car bombs on each other . 

 why did we go in ?


----------



## RachelMadcow (Apr 25, 2011)

Iraqis are now free


Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs,
> ...


"Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009). 

"Evidence of these deaths was extracted from some 8,250 distinct reports collected from 143 sources, covering 1,624 incidents, each of which is openly published on the IBC website. 

"These numbers represent a verifiable documentary record, not estimates (for some partially estimated figures, see the 'WikiLeaks' section below)."

Civilian deaths from violence in 2010 :: Iraq Body Count

How much of the 2010 violence in Iraq stems directly from US state-sponsored terror?

How much money has Wall Street "earned" from US terrorism?


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 25, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



make no difference it cost us billion a week increast our debt to china a hell of a lt . lost American lives . 
 [I put it in that order so you coud apresheate it ] 

Iraq never attacked us , Afghanistan did , Husein told bush he had no WMDs but W want to get an easy victory , what happened . 

we had no justification on the invasion , 

 how much of a success do you see ? 
its still more tribal more secular then ever , car bombs are still killing people . 

do you still have the picture of W claiming victory on board a navy ship ? 

 you repig whine about Libya but Iraq didn't do anything to us either .


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 25, 2011)

Some people really are funny. Some are running around cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his Family,yet these people really do feel they're so much better than those they criticize daily. Well guess what? They're not any better. If you can root for murdering a man and his Family,you can't claim any sort of 'higher ground.' It is what it is.


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



there are 100s of murders in this country daily
what does that have to do with us being in Iraq?
thats my point

and as far  as the way they behave as a free country
thats there business
they can make change allot more than they could  10 years ago


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Some people really are funny. Some are running around cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his Family,yet these people really do feel they're so much better than those they criticize daily. Well guess what? They're not any better. If you can root for murdering a man and his Family,you can't claim any sort of 'higher ground.' It is what it is.



we took 12 years and 18 months after 9-11 to make that choice
We still have no idea why this thing with Gaddafi is going on


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 26, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


*Baghdad to Damascus: No Way Back*

*"Damascus quickly became* a kaleidoscope of Iraqis from different sects, backgrounds, cities and political viewpoints, arriving and settling into three main areas - Jeramaneh, Saida Zeynab and Sahnaiya - to wait out the war. 

"Many were poor, but there were middle-class people, too. According to the UN, 40 per cent of Iraq's professional families fled the country, forced out by kidnappings and intercommunal warfare...

In June of 2010 the UN estimated 1.5 million Iraqis were still living abroad, preferring the life of a refugee to what their homeland had to offer.

"'I waited until after the elections because I thought things would get better *but they're getting worse again*,' said Umm Omar, 30, an English literature student and mother of two who arrived in Syria in July(2010). 

"She has registered as a UN refugee, hoping, in what is effectively a lottery, to win resettlement in Europe. 

"Determined not to abandon her home, Umm Omar had weathered the storm of violence in Baghdad when it peaked in 2006 but said the time had come to give up on Iraq entirely. 'It was a combination of things that made me finally decide,' she explained. '*The security is worse than they say it is*. 

"'There are no public services, no jobs. 

"'*You can't drink the water'*. 

"'There's no electricity and the politicians are only interested in themselves. There is only so much you can tolerate. '*In Iraq, we live like animals, not human beings.'"*

And draft dodgers like Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and Dubya get filthier and richer from their misery.

I'm sure they consider OIL a roaring success.

Baghdad to Damascus, a road with no way back - The National


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> "Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).



Tell it to Duhhhrrrrsmith.

He says it's a line of BS made up by the right.

BTW, you know full well that 90% +++ of the deaths are Muslim on Muslim violence.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 26, 2011)

In recent days i have observed many cheerleading for murdering Gaddafi and his Family. Our Government is now sending in drones to do this. If you can openly cheerlead for killing a man and his Family,you are a cold cold S.O.B. You can't claim any sort of higher ground. This Libyan War is a disgrace. It is unjust and probably illegal. Our Nation should not have gotten involved with their Civil War. It's just wrong.


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).
> ...



In addition thats probably no where near what the murder rate per year in this country is
I will look and see


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 26, 2011)

RachelMadcow said:


> Iraqis are now free
> 
> 
> Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda



Freedom in a Islamic theocracy?

Hate democrats much?  Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> RachelMadcow said:
> 
> 
> > Iraqis are now free
> ...



Both of you
this country is being run into the ground by Obama
What we did in Iraq had a 63% approval rate in 2003


PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows support for an invasion of Iraq slightly higher than in recent weeks, at 64%, although support is slightly lower when Americans are asked about an invasion that would take place within the next two weeks. Public support for an invasion could dramatically increase if the United States is successful in getting a new U.N. resolution passed that would set conditions for Iraq to disarm, including the possibility of military action if Iraq does not disarm*. However, a majority says it would still support an invasion if the United Nations rejects a new resolution on Iraq*. The public is divided, with half opposed to an invasion, if the United States decides to proceed with military action without submitting a new resolution to the United Nations.

The poll was conducted March 14-15, prior to the meeting of U.S. President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and their host, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, to discuss diplomatic options on Iraq. The United States, Great Britain, and Spain have been the most vocal supporters of a tougher stance against Iraq in an effort to remove its capabilities for weapons of mass destruction.

*According to the poll, 64% of Americans are in favor of invading Iraq with ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, while 33% are opposed.* The level of support on this basic question is up from the most recent reading taken about two weeks ago, March 3-5, when 59% favored an invasion. Support has generally been in the mid-to-high 50% range since last June, with one exception being a 63% reading shortly after Colin Powell's Feb. 5 address to the United Nations on Iraq.

Public Support for Invading Iraq


http://www.gallup.com/poll/7990/public-support-iraq-invasion-inches-upward.aspx *Added Link*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Hate democrats much?  Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?



Dims are too busy pissing on the constitution to worry about corn flakes.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).
> ...


As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.

Or do you believe GCIV doesn't apply to Americans?

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.



Yawn.

Weak and stupid.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> FreedomAli said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



Are you once again trying to argue that you don't know, therefore you must believe that what you don't know must be worse than what is actually known?


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



georgephillip bullshit
Muslims killing Muslims is a direct event of a Muslim killing a Muslim
Its why this mess exists to start with is Muslims killing
You liberal have 0 common sense
without the violence we would not be there to start with
1991 Saddam was told to stop or else
by 2003 or else was all that was left and every damn UN sanction he had on him he broke

There was over 500 munitions found with agents of mass destruction he was not suppose to have
thats a fact
there is so much Anthrax he had that is missing. It was not our place nor the U.Ns to make this shit go away
it was his


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
> ...



If you want to know, why don't you look it up instead making the ASSUMPTION that the number of jobs created in those fields would put a dent in the unemployment numbers when you don't even know how many jobs your unasnwered "questions" would create?

As for your last question the right has constantly argued that the "job creators" otherwise knows as " the rich" needed those tax cuts to create jobs and yet in spite of the fact that they had those taxcuts for ten years now they chose to cut jobs in order to maintain their profits and usually force their remaining employees to work harder in order to maintain the same production levels at a stagnant pay level. In other words the "rich" inceased their wealth while shifting the sacrifice to the workforce/middle class which contributed to the worsening economy. This goes traight to the core of the right's argumetns that WE need to tighten OUR belts and make sacrifices and yet they defend those who aren't sharing in the sacrifice even as they force it onto others.

But hey, they got theirs, to hell with everyone else, right??


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > RachelMadcow said:
> ...




That is a Republican talking point with no basis in fact.  The Dems would say it was the Republicans that ran it into the ground.  In reality both parties are to blame.

So what?  70% also believed that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks too.  When they found out that there was no active Nuclear, Biological or Chemical Weapons manufactoring gong on what did they think then?  After the successful invasion during the first 6 months of the occupation the additude of the American people changed.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > As the Occupying Power the US is 100% responsible for all of the Muslim on Muslim violence that's occurred in Iraq since March of 2003.
> ...



Exactly.  The US force they invaded with was to *weak* to stablize the country.  Pretty fucking *stupid* is right.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > > Who lied?
> ...



Why is it that you focus on february when blix gave a report to the UN in march that talked about how much iraq was cooporating with the inspectors?? 

BTW what you provided was an OP-ed from a newmax talking head who is presenting his OPINIONS and interpretation of the so-called facts. LOL Or do you actually believe this is an example of an "information based" link and not based on OPINION? LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Exactly.  The US force they invaded with was to *weak* to stablize the country.  Pretty fucking *stupid* is right.



Then maybe it should have been "Shock and Awe," then go home, huh?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Curveball.....you know.....the Iraqi national who told us Saddam had WMD's?
> ...



Nice sidestep with an extra sidestep of spam. LOL It's really funny how you rush to believe the "butcher of basra" et al and their claims that they can't prove all because their claims support your spin. LOL


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Poli_Sigh said:
> ...



your joking right?
Those words that man said you do not consider information?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
esolution 1441 *stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."*


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to post any response I've made that deny the above allegations.
> ...



How is any of that a denial of the abuses you listed in iraq?? Care to explain?? 



Uncensored2008 said:


> > More to the point many of those attocities were made during a time in which your hero, Ronnie Raygun, was providing Saddam with financial and military support/aid,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UH you do realize that you quoted incidents that occured prior to 1988 don't you?? 



Uncensored2008 said:


> {1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.
> 
> 1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.



Funny how you once again are shown to ignore your own words when they provide evidence that runs counter to your desired argument. 

So who was president in 87 and 88 and had supported saddam in the iran-iraq war??
Here is a hint that will lead you in the right direction.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8]YouTube - Rumsfeld & Saddam Make Nice[/ame]


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You liberals amaze me
How far do you want to go with this?
*esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
*
Blix stated inn 2003 that they had lied

*Mr Blix said t*he declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said*. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
*He recalled that Iraq *had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
*He added that Iraq had not fully accounted f*or stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
*Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons* inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 *Link Added*
how far do you want to take this?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



WOW! imagine that, yet anotehr sidestep from you. Do you ever actually respond to what people post or is spamming items that don't address what was said and OPINION all that you have to offer? What does the spam you provided this time have to do with your previous spam??  

So why is it that you focus on february and ignore blix's report to the UN in march in which he talks about how much iraq is cooporating with inspectors??


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 26, 2011)

Yes but Gaddafi is worse than Saddam Hussein,Pol Pot,and Adolf Hitler combined. Well that's what the Bombers are telling us anyway. Man,some people will believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. It's actually pretty sad. The Bombers sure have pulled out all the stops on their Libyan War propaganda. Next they'll probably claim Gaddafi strangles Babies and cute little puppy dogs in his spare time too. What a sham.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



In case you missed it your own quote stated " Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for *was not proof they existed and were hidden.*"

So in other words the fact that iraq could not account for them did not prove that they still existed. 

That is from your own quote. So spamming other BS as you cherry pick comments that suit your needs even as you ignore more recent comments from the same source shows how desperate you are to spin this.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > OBL did, and 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated he was no longer concerned with him.
> ...



Nice sidestep in an attempt to avoid facts that he doesn't wish to address. LOL And you have the nerve to attack others for a lack of integrity even as you edit, cut and paste only a SMALL excerpt of a post even as you fail to address even the small excerpt and try to change the subject?  Really? LOL


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Cherry pick?
WTF are you doing?
By the way, how do you go from tthey never existed to 
B]Mr Blix said t[/B]he declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said*. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
*He recalled that Iraq *had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
*He added that Iraq had not fully accounted f*or stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
*Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons* inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.

Those are Blixes words
not mine
so I think we have found a place as to who do you trust?
was that not part of the entire problem?


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



WOW! More spammed right wing talking points and propaganda by the right. LOL IMagine that. 

I have a question, do you have any opinions of your own or do you think spamming the moronic opinions of others like a good little lemming is just as good??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Really?? from WHEN?? When did blix make those comments?? Why don't you go and take a look at his report to UN in march?? Why do you have to cherry pick comments from God only knows when instead of focusing more more recent comments?? 

Furthermore, when and where did I say that they never existed?? Or is this where you get desperate and make up shite and attribute your wok of fiction to someone who never made such a claim?  

Oh and care to address the quote from your own post?? 

Here it is again for you since you missed it when you posted and when i reposted it.

" Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for *was not proof they existed and were hidden.*"

So why is that you put so much weight what what blix says when it supports your spin and ignore his words when they don't support your spin??


----------



## JRK (Apr 26, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



i have a question for you
once you are provided with information that is not from the main stream media (Dan Rather), why does the other 1/2 of the story scare you liberals so?
I truly believe that W did what he said he was going to do
unlike Obama who has done nothing but run up the debt

B]Mr Blix said t[/B]he declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said*. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
*He recalled that Iraq *had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
*He added that Iraq had not fully accounted f*or stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
*Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons* inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.

what do you call this?
at what point after 9-11 do you say enough is enough


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > into a war over the WMD thing.  Bush was not.
> ...



So you claim what clinton did by continuing sanctions against iraq was "murder" so how do you feel about what W did with bombs and an invasion?? 

BTW I find it freaking hilarious that you are using an op-ed from some lame website as the source of your claims. LOL 

Oh and how do you hold only clinton accountable for sanctions that your source even admits began in 1990 which was BEFORE clinton was president??

WOW, is all I have to say and to think JRK actually thanked you for that bs. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So that would be a no to answering my questions. Got it.

Still cherry picking I see. When did those comments come from?? Got a link and a timeframe??

" Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for *was not proof they existed and were hidden* ."

BTW I know it's hard for a lemming like you but 9/11 had nothing to do with iraq so please stop trying to make that connecntion. You are only making yourself look more and more foolish everytime you repeat it.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncle Kenny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey......you pretty much summed up why Jr. wanted to go into Iraq.
> ...



HUH?? Eye issue??

Is this not what you stated?? 



Uncle Kenny said:


> Iraq is a nation that has geographic significance, wealthy resources and an unpopular secular king that was unlikely to justify a mainstream reaction, while almost guaranteeing extremist attention.



Why mention their resources at all if that wasn't part of the goal?? 

Furthermore, are you admittting that W wanted to use Iraq because he knew it would draw the "extremists" into iraq so they could attack our troops instead of attacking us here in the US?? 

So according to you the claims by the left that the "extremists" in question were not there prior to the invasion is true and that we had to draw them there by using our troops as targets? WOW!

Also, according to you the the left was correct and the REAL reason we went in had nothing to do with WMDs or the fictional link between iraq and 9/11 but instead had to do with iraq's geographical location and how it is of strategic use to the US as "battlefield"??  

Well now that is cleared up when are all of you rightwingers going to start apologizing to the the leftwingers that you have been attacking even though we are right about WMDs not being the real reason for the invasion?? LOL


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


JRK...Do you think Saddam would still be in charge if Iraq's principle export was cabbages?

There's some recent evidence that England's lords and ladies did it for the O-I-L:

"Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves *as a reward* for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change...

"The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq 'post regime change'. Its minutes state: '*Iraq is the big oil prospect*. 

"BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.'"

btw, Lady Symons took an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that "cashed in" on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts.

"Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board..."

War is a racket.
Why can't you cons admit it?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> U.S. to move operations from Saudi base
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> April 29, 2003|Barbara Starr CNN
> ...



Uh a base was moved from one location to another can you prove that anything has been saved??

Furthermore, did you actually just say that troops dying has NO cost?? Really??

How much does training cost? How much does burial and transport cost? If they have the government life insurance (can't remember what it was called just paid into when I served) where does the cost for that come from? Those are just the monetary costs not the emotional, the cost to our society and our economy. So I ask again, are you seriously claiming that "troops dying has no cost."?


----------



## Intense (Apr 26, 2011)

*Just a Reminder. Each Copy and Paste needs to be linked to It's Source. Reckless Disregard will Result in Posts being Removed and Infraction.*


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



And what does that have to do with W's choice to invade iraq 4 years later??? NOTHING REAL. Nice attempt to move the goal posts and make this about clinton and not W's CHOICE to invade iraq. 
I do find it funny how you use wikipedia so much when the right calls it into question whenever someone on left chooses to use it. LOL 

It's also hilarious how you keep going back to what clinton did in an attempt to support your spin even as you and others attack clinton for what he did. LOL 

However, this is another example of how the right has no problem looking back even as one of their current core arguments is how it's wrong to look back and blame W for events that began on his watch. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 26, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> BOOOOOOOOOSH!!!! Oh and that CHAYNEEE too.!! Nuff said.



I guess you missed the fact that the rightwingers here are going out of their way to look back and blame clinton. Nevermind the fact that W made the choice to invade Iraq and nevermind the fact that reagan was supportive of saddam in the iran/iraq war and nevermind that HW left him in power after the first gulf war but you go a head and blame clinton even as you ignore the fact that the right accused him of lying or "wagging the dog" about most attempts he made to deal with iraq or bin laden.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 26, 2011)

What is the cost benefit of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

By any objective measure it is a failure.


----------



## idb (Apr 26, 2011)

> Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."


USA TODAY Education - Confronting Iraq



> The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.


White House Cuts Estimate of Cost of War With Iraq



> Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
> 
> Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."


E. J. Dionne Jr. - How Cheney Fooled Himself - washingtonpost.com

It's gone completely according to plan...Mission Accomplished!


----------



## mnbasketball (Apr 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



GEE LETS SEE

Destroyed the country, and Killed 100,000 civilians
4500 Americans dead
many 1000's of Americans veterans are now disabled
the war wasn't, isn't and won't be paid for by the budget
we didn't get anyone who was part of 9/11
we are tied into protecting the area probably for the rest of history, or at least a long, long time
the people of the country still hate each other
there is little real democracy there
and hoar's are still getting screwed and women rapped and killed
the country is not safe, would you go there to vacation?
you want more?

Not to mention it's not in the constitution to start wars against others for the purpose of overthrowing their government.


----------



## mnbasketball (Apr 26, 2011)

President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.

Did it say with an act of war against Saddam, no it said it supports democratic movements withing Iraq.

nice try dummy, but Bush choose to go to war to remove Saddam from power as most everyone saw it except your side who would follow the devil to the end if he was elected president and called himself a REPUBLICAN.


----------



## JRK (Apr 27, 2011)

mnbasketball said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



My friend no-one said you had to agree with the war
I hate it, it sucks
This country made a choice, a majority choice after 9-11 and before 9-11 to remove Saddam
we did just that

Without Saddam's bull shit there is never a war
If he does the right thing in 1991
there is never a war
The US service men who gave there lives in Iraq did it by volunteering
Muslims killing Muslims is no different than Americans killing Americans
how many murders, rapes and whores are there or have been in this country sense 2003?
1000s
Even Clinton had, had enough
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - D*eclares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.*

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

There is so much spam with this event that the simple truth is Saddam had to go
that simple truth was followed by Al Qaeda fighting there war with us on the Iraqi soil


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> What is the cost benefit of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?
> 
> By any objective measure it is a failure.


Wry... Do you think Halliburton, Blackwater and Boeing, not to mention Goldman Sachs or the richest 1% of Americans, agree with you.

There are reports of defense contractors' profits quadrupling from the Iraq War.

War is a RacketTHREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE.


----------



## JRK (Apr 27, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > What is the cost benefit of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...id-contract-in-iraq-start-a-war-for-this.html
really?
Let me ask another question
Does these same companies not get work in Afghanistan?
Look if you dis agree with the war, thats your right
But to make a claim that GWB invaded Iraq so KBR could do some work is nuts
Why do that when GM (UAW) gets 50 billion for doing nothing?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 27, 2011)

Hey at least Halliburton & KBR pay Taxes. GE doesn't. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt Hopey Changey's "Jobs Czar?" Pretty laughable no? GE & this White House represent corrupt cronyism at its worst. Halliburton & KBR pay Taxes. Why doesn't GE? Something else to ponder i guess.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Hey at least Halliburton & KBR pay Taxes. GE doesn't. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt Hopey Changey's "Jobs Czar?" Pretty laughable no? GE & this White House represent corrupt cronyism at its worst.



What they represent is fascism. The Obama doctrine is fascism, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## georgephillip (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Let's look at how our "junior partner's" doing in Iraq, keeping in mind they are second in line.

"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by  government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before *Britain took a leading role* in invading Iraq, government documents show."

So far the British have been more forthcoming in answering FOIA requests than we have but stay tuned on that one.

"In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as highly inaccurate'. BP denied that it had any 'strategic interest' in Iraq, while Tony Blair described 'the oil conspiracy theory" as 'the most absurd'".

"But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture...

"Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: 'Baroness Symons (UK Trade Minister at the time) agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis'...

"Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had 'no strategic interest' in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was '*more important than anything we've seen for a long time.*'"

Those twenty year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion of Iraq were the largest in the history of the oil industry, covering half of Iraq's reserves.

Btw, Lady Symons cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts, and recently severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board.

Do you sense a pattern forming here?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent


----------



## JRK (Apr 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > 1) remove saddam
> ...



I guess if we look at how many people are murdered in this country daily, do we consider this country stable?
I mean if you hear of 30 people every day killed in Iraq you go OMG
Right?
not so crazy after you see we have as many as we do
How many murders committed per day in US? « The Tizona Group
Answers.com - How many murders committed per day in US


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Not really. Only time will tell that they will remain on that path after we leave. To claim otherwise assumes facts not in evidence YET.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yes rewriting history and i am not respondiong to your spam. it has already been seen and questioned and it has been pointed out to you that blix made a later report to the UN in which he stated how much iraq was cooporating so yuor argument that saddam was given 18 months to do the right thing is a BS attempt to rewrite history seeing that W kicked the inspectors out when they were doing their jobs. 

W chose to rush in and stopped the inspections and all you can do is quote cherry picked talking points from op-eds and right wing blogs that fit your predisposed opinions.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Do you know how NOT to spam?? 

Your 1) is iofftopic bs and a doesn't really address what was said. 

your 2) is somethign that you need to address with the guy who made the claim.

you skip 3) and 4) 

Your 5) doesn't really address what was said so why is it that you seem to believe spamming nonresponsively actualyl addesses what was actually said??  

your 6) does nothing to address your claim of offsetting costs. 

and you don't respond to 7)

LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yes the source matters, W's experience with "curveball" should have taught you that. Quoting someone who is using info that cannot be verified for personal gain might just be making shite up because he believes that it's what we want to hear.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



LOL So you can't defend your own source so you move the goal posts and try to change the focus to other sources that have nothing to do with yours. LOL


----------



## George Costanza (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



We are not the World Police.  Shit happens.  It is happening now, in all different corners of the world.  Too bad.  Sorry.  We are not the World Police.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).
> ...



Ok please to read.

This started with a claim that there have been 99,000 -100,000 deaths in the iraqi war. 

Then YOU responded with



Uncensored2008 said:


> *Justify Lying.*
> 
> The United States did *NOT* kill 100,000 Iraqis.



blindboo responded with



BlindBoo said:


> Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians?  Not the poster and not the link?



and then i responded with 



drsmith1072 said:


> You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.



So your original argument where you claim that someone said that the *US* killed 100,000 iraqi civilians when even you admit that the source did not make that claim, was made up.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > RachelMadcow said:
> ...



There you go cherrypicking and spamming again. Why focus on that one approval rating?? Was it the highet point in approval for the iraq war??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



WOW! You actually do believe that your spam is a response to every post even though you fail to actually respond to the actual content. LOL 

"Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for *was not proof they existed and were hidden.*"

Even your own source counters your spin. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...



Uh we don't even hear of every murder every day in ourown states let alone the entire country and you actually expect us to hear about every murder that occurs in iraq??


BTW don't you consider it a tad bit dishonest to try and compare the murder rate in the US to the deaths caused by acts of terrorism in iraq??


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> Ok please to read.
> 
> This started with a claim that there have been 99,000 -100,000 deaths in the iraqi war.



You're mentally retarded.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

George Costanza said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Your opinion is duly noted with respect


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



We did when GWB was president
And as far as re writing history
it is funny you make that claim when the media is the only ones re writing history

Allot of assumptions where made and allot of comments where taken out of context

To start with I am 100% against all violence
These events went on from 1991 till 2003

Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument
Thats 1998, not 2003
re write history?
If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
This is why a liberal fails so many times in a free market environment
They do not understand a root cause analysis

Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, favor sending ground troops to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power
Poll: Bush gaining support on invading Iraq - CNN
and do not hit me with the bull shit about WMDs
Saddam was suppose to have destroyed every war head that contained a chemical substance
The press decided to state that those munitions found with those chemicals within them where not the same as a war head that had a harm full chemical compound in it
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Bottom line is Saddam was lying the entire time


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 28, 2011)

By any objective measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a failure.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok please to read.
> ...



WOW! So stating the facts that you avoided as you tried to spin what someone said to fit your need to attack them is mentally retarded?? Got it. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



we did what?? What are you claiming and care to prove it?? 



JRK said:


> And as far as re writing history
> it is funny you make that claim when the media is the only ones re writing history



ah the old bait and switch. You are rewriting history and cherry picking comments that suit your needs and instead of addressing that you try to change the subject



JRK said:


> Allot of assumptions where made and allot of comments where taken out of context



and your posts are a perfect example of how comments are taken out of context. 



JRK said:


> To start with I am 100% against all violence
> These events went on from 1991 till 2003
> 
> Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument



I just wonder why you choose to cherry pick a time in the past even as you ignore facts from a more recent time that tend to counter your spin and have MORE to do with the current conversation.



JRK said:


> Thats 1998, not 2003
> re write history?



What does 1998 have to do with W's CHOICE to kick out the inspectors BEFORE they had completed their jobseven as W chose to invade in 2003? Furthermore, wasn't their job in accordance with the UN and wasn't W's decision at least partially based on the claim that iraq violated a UN resolution?? 

How can you honestly use the violation of UN resolutions as a justification when W went against the UN to invade??? 



JRK said:


> If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
> This is why a liberal fails so many times in a free market environment
> They do not understand a root cause analysis



AGAIN since you are prone to ignoring facts that counter your spin i guess I will have to repeat them to you. If you want to look at a root cause look to reagan who helped saddam in the iran-iraq war inspite of his use of WMDs. Do you actually believe saddam's reign began in 1991? 
Once again you choose to insult because you have no real argument when you look at the WHOLE picture instead of the few excerpts that you have chosen to cherry pick and base your entire oad of bs on.  



JRK said:


> Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
> Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, favor sending ground troops to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power
> Poll: Bush gaining support on invading Iraq - CNN



Uh and you don't think that has anything to do with how W and the right talked up the imminent threat that iraq posed to the US and how if we don't intercede we could see mushroom clouds over our cities?? LOL 




JRK said:


> and do not hit me with the bull shit about WMDs
> Saddam was suppose to have destroyed every war head that contained a chemical substance
> The press decided to state that those munitions found with those chemicals within them where not the same as a war head that had a harm full chemical compound in it
> Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
> Bottom line is Saddam was lying the entire time



And again you spam with moronic BS about old defunct munitions. Imagine that. 

Jrk want a cracker?? I have to ask because you are very good at repeating the same bs over and over again even IF it lacks substance and does nothing to further your arguments.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> And as far as re writing history
> .
> .
> .
> Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument



It is not an argument that Unscom was not kicked out by Saddam.  Anyone who tells you Saddam kick them out is trying to re-write history.

In 1998 Richard Butler, the head of Unscom, pulled them out amid accusations of U.S. spying.  Less than 24 hours later, the United States, along with Great Britain, launched Operation Desert Fox.

The Case of the Spies Without a Country


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Take your pick
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock

Introduction


Saddam Hussein, after being captured by 
U.S. forces in Iraq on December 13, 2003
Here he is, the man they called The Butcher of Baghdad, Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.  


Hussein, while still in power
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.

Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?

The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:  






I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australias Melbourne Herald Sun.1  





Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright >


	Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one, Senator Ted Kennedy said October 16, 2003.2 We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.  










< Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)

As we all know by now, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen sniffed last May, there was never a proven link between Saddam, al-Qaida or even the Crips. 3










Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen >



In August 2003, former vice president Albert Gore reassuringly stated: The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all. 4 

< Former vice president Albert Gore

Even those who would be President of the United States cast doubts. "Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion," 5 Democratic candidate John Kerry told Philadelphia voters September 24. At the September 30, 2004 presidential debate, Kerry asserted, "Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." 6
Presidential hopeful, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) >


*    *    *

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:7



The public evidence of Saddam Husseins cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and clear. The Baathist governments contacts and collaboration with terrorists in general, al-Qaeda in particular, and even the September 11 conspirators should make all Americans highly grateful that President Bush led an international effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Funds for Terrorists

Lets start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Husseins government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist governments underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.  



President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000, Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.8


Ousted Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz >



Saddam Hussein
Aziz simply echoed the policy his boss established one week earlier. As Saddam Hussein put it on Iraqi TV on March 4, 2002:

"We are glad of the Istishhadiyyah [suicide] and heroic spirit of the Palestinian people. By Allah, what the Palestinian people does is beyond my expectations 9

Saddam Husseins vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, is the man who Israeli intelligence believes was directly involved in funneling money from Baghdad into the hands of the families of homicide bombers. Documents that the Israeli Defense Force captured in the Palestinian town of Ramallah indicate that Vice President Ramadan used the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and the Palestinian branch of the Iraqi Baathist party to pass these funds into the hands of terrorists families.




Deposed Iraqi Vice President 
Taha Yassin Ramadan


Heres the sort of thing Ramadan bought with Saddam Husseins money: On March 9, 2002, Fuad Ismail Ahmad al-Hurani blew himself up in a Jerusalem restaurant called the Moment Café.  



The devastation was extensive inside the eatery.  



Far worse, of course, was the human toll. Eleven Israelies were murdered while 52 were wounded.  



A little over three months after that carnage, Mrs. Khaldiya Ismail Abd al-Aziz al-Hurani collected a check for $25,000 as a bonus for her sons suicide and his homicide of nearly a dozen others. The following check was a President Saddam Husseins Grant paid via the Palestine Investment Bank. These funds were transferred on June 23, 2002.  



In another case, Usama Muhammad Id Bahr and Nabil Mahmud Jamil Halbiyyah blew themselves up in Jerusalem's Zion Square on December 1, 2001. Before setting off to "martyrdom," they also left a car bomb set on a timer two blocks away. It exploded just as rescue workers and emergency personnel arrived on the scene.


Emergency personnel examine terrorist 
casualties in Jerusalem's Zion Square
Here again, the physical damage was extensive, but largely reparable. Alas, the human toll was far more severe, what with 11 deaths and 188 injuries.


A secondary car bomb explodes, left behind by terrorists who 
blew themselves up in Zion Square moments earlier 
The deceased were all between ages 14 and 21. They were out for a night of fun after the end of Sabbath.


Victims of the December 1, 2001 Zion Square terrorist bombing
The only people who benefitted from this barbarism were the relatives of these two bombers who received President Saddam Hussein Grants here, as well.  



The following document, captured by the Israeli military in Ramallah, shows a list of Iraqi-subsidized homicide bombers and their atrocities. It mentions the name of Raghib Ahmad Izat Jarradat.



On April 10, 2002, Izat Jarradat boarded a crowded bus strapped with explosives. As the bus approached the busy Yagur junction near Haifa, he blew himself up. Here is his handiwork. This vulgarity killed eight Israelis and wounded 15 others.


A demolished bus, surrounded by victims 
of an April 10, 2002 terrorist blast at Yagur Junction
Not all of these victims are Israeli. American Abigail Litle, the daughter of a Baptist minister, was just 14 years old when she was killed on an Israeli bus on March 5, 2003.


Abigail Litle, terror victim
Litle is not alone in that distinction. Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks  were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLOs Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.  



At a ceremony celebrating suicide terror bombings, a poster honors 
the relationship between Yasser Arafat (left) and Saddam Hussein (right).  
Family members of homicide bombers received certificates of merit, such as this one handed to the relatives of a killer in Gaza on July 18, 2002.  



Here it is, up close.  


Certificate recognizing a suicide bomber's "martyrdom." Note the attached
"President Saddam Hussein's Grant" check in the lower right-hand corner.
These families showed their thanks for these cash infusions, even as their sons (and occasional daughters) blasted themselves to bits.  



The Palestinian newspaper, Al Hayat, in December 2000 featured this letter expressing gratitude and appreciation to President Yasser Arafat and to President Saddam Hussein from the family of Imad Al-Dib Badir Al-Dayah.  >	

<  This January 2001 letter, in the Palestinian paper, Al Quds, says: Gratitude and appreciation to the President of Iraq and his great people from the relatives of the martyrs Amjad Hassinah and Fadi Dhabayah. 10 

Diplomatic Assistance for Terrorists


Abu Abbas, Iraqi-supported terrorist
In addition to funds, Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. This is Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.


The Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro 
At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abbas men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean.


Leon Klinghoffer (left), terror victim
The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport.

How do we know this?  


The source for this information is not Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. It is none other than this man, Bettino Craxi. At that time, he was Italys prime minister. As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passportThe plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground. Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxis coalition, the Italian government collapsed. 11



Former Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi
The man pictured below is Hisham al Hussein, the former second secretary at Iraqs embassy in Manila.  




Deported Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein 

The Philippine government expelled him on February 13, 2003, just five weeks before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cell phone records indicate he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaedas de facto franchise for the Philippines. The timing was particularly suspicious, as he had been in contact with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists just before and after they conducted an attack in Zamboanga City.



Abu Sayyafs nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and one American. That American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.  




In a tragically familiar scene (above), soldiers bring home the flag-draped casket of another American terror victim.  U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson (right) was killed October 2, 2002 in a bomb attack by Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda's Philippine franchise.


As Dan Murphy wrote in the February 26, 2003 Christian Science Monitor, those tell-tale cell phone records bolster the televised claim by Hamsiraji Sali, a top Abu Sayyaf terrorist, that the Iraqi diplomat had offered this group of Islamo-fascists Baghdads help with joint missions. 12 
Safe Haven for Terrorists

Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living.  


After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Husseins guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes. 




Abu Abbas, Iraqi-supported terrorist
Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.  



Abu Nidal, Iraqi-supported terrorist
Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidals Beirut office said he entered Iraq with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities. 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization  a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidals group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Romes Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Viennas airport, killing 19 people.  


Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport littered with corpses after 
a December 27, 1985 attack by the Abu Nidal Organization
Among the five Americans that Abu Nidal murdered that day was John Buonocore III, a 20-year-old Fairleigh Dickinson College student who had studied in Rome that fall semester. Buonocore was shot in the back while checking in for his flight home. He had hoped to return to Wilmington, Delaware to help his father celebrate his 50th birthday.


John Buonocore III, terror victim
The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum: 

Americans killed in the Abu Nidal Organization's December 27, 1985 attack on Rome's airport: 

*John Buonocore III, 20, of Wilmington, Delaware 
*Frederick Gage of Madison, Wisconsin 
*Natasha Simpson, 11, of New York 
*Don Maland of New Port Richey, Florida 
*Elena Tomarello, 67, of Naples, Florida 
The New York Times, December 29, 1985 
American executed during ANO's 1986 hijacking of a Pan Am jet at Karachi, Pakistan's airport: 

*Rajesh Kumar of Huntington Beach, California 
The New York Times, September 7, 1986
Americans slaughtered in ANO's September 8, 1974 bombing of a TWA jet over the Ionian Sea en route from Israel to Greece, killing all 88 aboard: 

*Eitan Bard of Tuckahoe, New York 
*Seldon Bard of Tuckahoe, New York 
*Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, Connecticut 
*Jon L. Cheshire of Old Lyme, Connecticut 
*Jeremiah Hadley of Poughkeepsie, New York 
*Katherine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, New York 
*Frederick Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey 
*Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, New Jersey 
*Don H. Holliday of Mahwah, New Jersey 
*Dr. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts 
*Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, Massachusetts 
The New York Times, September 10, 1974
If there is any justice here, perhaps it is the fact that Abu Nidal died in August 2002. Saddam Husseins government claimed that he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head  four times.14  

*    *    *

So far, we have documented that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans. But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America? 

Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin, pictured below in a U.S. State Department "Wanted" poster.  


Abdul Rahman Yasin
This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.


An NYPD officer escorts a woman suffering from 
smoke inhalation after the February 26, 1993 WTC bombing 
Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in BaghdadJust a few days ago, he was seen at [his fathers] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely. 15	

Former ABC News correspondent 
Sheila MacVicar
Since Iraq was liberated, Yasin remains at large.  


Medical Treatment for Terrorists  

Saddam Husseins general store for terrorists included medical care, too.


Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Iraqi-supported terrorist
This is Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of this man, Lawrence Foley:


U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley, terror victim
Foley was a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan who worked on international development projects. For that "transgression," he was gunned down and killed in his driveway at home.  


Police crowd the blood-stained driveway   
of murdered American diplomat Lawrence Foley
Training for Terrorists

According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.16  


Salman Pak terrorist training camp near Baghdad
VIEW ENLARGED PHOTO
The man pictured below is Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program Frontline, stating, This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.


Sabah Khodada, Iraqi defector
He added: Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.

He continued: We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane. 17

Does that sound familiar?

A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for Frontline closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.  


Khodada's drawing from memory of the Salman Pak terrorist training 
camp (left) closely mirrors the satellite photo of the actual facility (right).
VIEW ENLARGED PHOTO

General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom, had his own observations about Saddam Hussein's terrorist pedagogy. Speaking at an April 6, 2003 press conference, General Brooks said: The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training that they received, all of these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak. 18	

U.S. Army General Vincent Brooks


An al-Qaeda Link?

So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers. 


A mural at an Iraqi military base appears to celebrate 9/11.
Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. Thats one clear link to al-Qaeda.  


1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin 
in a State Department "Wanted" poster
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir  an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampurs airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standards Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. 19




9/11 hijackers Nawaz al Hamzi and Khalid al Midhar  
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people. 


A security camera captures the impact of  
American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon  


Firefighters try to control the flames engulfing 
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and Operation Bojinka, al-Qaedas 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen. 20

Below is a rare photograph of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. He was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too. While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with "Hamburg student." Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and chatted about Hegel and Nietzsche.  


Former Iraqi diplomat Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani
Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11. As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.: In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status. 21 Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up. 


Czech officials insist 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta (above)  
met with an Iraqi diplomat five months before piloting 
American Airlines Flight 11 into One World Trade Center 
Of course, we know what happened next. Mohamed Atta and his henchmen went to airports on the East Coast. Here he is in Portland, Maine at 5:45 a.m. on September 11, 2001.  



Hijackers Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al Omari clear 
airport security three hours before the 9/11 attack
Within just three hours, he and the other pilots were in the air, about to reshape history. He and his evil colleagues turned this lovely vista of America's premier city 



into a towering inferno.  



They stole 2,749 innocent souls from the American family and decapitated the most powerful skyline man ever built.


The New York City skyline before and after the 9/11 attack

Would This Hold Up in Court?

So would any or all of these ties between Iraq and terrorism or Iraq and al-Qaeda, in particular, withstand judicial scrutiny? Thats the question the families of two of those murdered at the World Trade Center wondered. The survivors of George Eric Smith, a 38-year-old senior business analyst with SunGard Asset Management Systems and   


9/11 victim George Eric Smith
the family of Timothy Soulas, age 35, a foreign currency specialist with Cantor Fitzgerald, sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages connected to the murders of their loved ones.


9/11 victim Timothy Soulas
The federal trial judge was Harold Baer, Jr. a Clinton appointee. He took testimony from Clinton-designated CIA director James Woolsey and American Enterprise Institute scholar Laurie Mylroie, an adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign. Baer learned about the Salman Pak camp, and considered other evidence of Saddam Husseins ties to al-Qaeda. To be fair, Baer did not hear Husseins side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.



As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Husseins government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.  

As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:  
I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda. 22



U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr.

This lead to the following headline from the most unimpeachable name in news, CBS: Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.


Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and  according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge  the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad.



Saddam Hussein was a living threat to American national security and the safety of the civilized world. Earth is a safer place with him now where he belonged all along:  



HANGED BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD.



*    *    *

ENDNOTES:

Click here for a printable version including full Web URLs


1. Madeleine Albright, How we tackled the wrong tiger. Melbourne Herald Sun, October 21, 2003, page 19.

2. Anne E. Kornblut, Kennedy to assail Bush over Iraq war. Boston Globe, October 16, 2003. VIEW HERE

3. Richard Cohen, "Iraqi chaos product of Bush's consistency." Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, May 29, 2004. VIEW HERE

4. CBS News, Gore Takes Aim At Bush: Former Veep Addresses New York Audience. August 7, 2003. VIEW HERE

5. John Kerry, Speech at Temple University, September 24, 2004. VIEW HERE

6. CNN.com, Key points of Thursday's debate. October 1, 2004. VIEW HERE

7. Deroy Murdock, Saddam Husseins Philanthropy of Terror. The Hudson Institute: American Outlook, Fall 2003, page 50. VIEW HERE

8. Reuters, Hussein vows cash for martyrs. March 12, 2002. Published in The Australian, March 13, 2002, page 9.

9. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iraqi Support for and Encouragement of Palestinian Terrorism, September 30, 2002. This online document provided most of the background on Baathist Iraqs sponsorship of the anti-Israeli Intifada. VIEW HERE

10. Ibid.

11. United Press International, untitled dispatch by Rome, Italy correspondent, Paula Butturini. October 14, 1985. Cited in Paul Crespo, Evidence Supports That Hussein Had Strong Links With Terrorists, Miami Herald, June 1, 2004. VIEW HERE

12. Dan Murphy, Iraq to outsource counterattacks. Baghdad is using embassies to forge ties with extremist groups to attack US facilities, say Filipino officials. The Christian Science Monitor, February 26, 2003. VIEW HERE

13. Sameer N. Yacoub, Iraq claims terrorist leader committed suicide. August 21, 2002 Associated Press dispatch published in Portsmouth Herald, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 22, 2002. VIEW HERE

14. Associated Press, Palestinian officials say Abu Nidal is dead. Posted on USAToday.com, week of August 19, 2002. VIEW HERE

15. Sheila MacVicar, Americas Most Wanted  Fugitive Terrorists. ABC News Day One, July 27, 1994.

16. Ravi Nessman, Marines capture camp suspected as Iraqi training base for terrorists. Associated Press, April 6, 2003, 4:14 p.m. EST. Posted by St. Paul Pioneer Press VIEW HERE

17. PBS Frontline, Gunning for Saddam: Should Saddam Hussein Be Americas Next Target in the War on Terrorism? November 8, 2001. Read interviews and other information at: VIEW HERE

18. Nessman, supra.

19. Stephen F. Hayes, Dick Cheney Was Right: We dont know about Saddam and 9/11. The Weekly Standard, October 20, 2003. VIEW HERE

20. Saddams Files, (Staff editorial), The Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2004, page A20.

21. Hynek Kmonicek, Czech Ambassador to United Nations, Letter to James Beasley, Jr. February 24, 2003. VIEW HERE

22. CBSNews.com, Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked, May 7, 2003. VIEW HERE

*    *    *

FURTHER READING:



Deroy Murdocks articles on Saddam Hussein and terror


Click here for a printable version including full Web URLs

1. Connections. National Review Online (NRO), April 10, 2006. GO TO ARTICLE

2. The Butcher with Terror Ties. NRO, January 13, 2006. GO TO ARTICLE

3. Smoking in the Background. NRO, December 21, 2005. GO TO ARTICLE

4. Saddam Was Tied to Terror. NRO, December 13, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

5. HusseinAndTerror.com: Introducing a new resource. NRO, October 20, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

6. Dems, Then & Now: Iraq terror-tie facts changed with the campaign season for Kerry and Co. NRO, October 7, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

7. There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N, NRO, July 21, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

8. Baathist Fingerprints, NRO, June 3, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

9. Clarkes Not Blind, NRO, March 26, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

10. Graves of Mass Evidence, NRO, March 19, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE

11. The Road to Hell Is Paved with Acts of Terror, NRO, March 10, 2004 GO TO ARTICLE  

12. On the Interrogation List: How did Saddam help 9/11 happen? NRO, December 15, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE   

13. Saddam Husseins Philanthropy of Terror. The Hudson Institute: American Outlook, Fall 2003, pages 46  52. GO TO ARTICLE

14. Saddams Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence, NRO, October 21, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

15. WMD & More: Remember what we have found in Iraq, NRO, June 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

16. Another Terror Tie: The evidence against Saddam Hussein continues to stack up, NRO, April 16, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

17. At Salman Pak: Iraqs terror ties, NRO, April 7, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

18. The 9/11 Connection: What Salman Pak could reveal, NRO, April 3, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

19. Disarmament Not Good Enough: Getting rid of Saddam, NRO, March 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE

20. Iraqs Capability: Lets not wait for a mushroom cloud, NRO, September 24, 2002. GO TO ARTICLE



*    *    *

FURTHER READING:




U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office - Joint Reserve Intelligence Center 

This website provides access to Baathist diplomatic, intelligence, and military papers captured by American GIs during Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the U.S. government declassifies and releases these millions of Iraqi records, many of them initially will be posted here. VIEW DOCUMENTS

*    *    *



Few journalists seem terribly interested in Saddam Hussein's terrorist handiwork. Stephen Hayes is not among them. He has shared my passion in covering the fallen tyrant's philanthropy of terror. Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has broken many of the stories that have helped me connect these dots and comment on the pictures that have emerged. Hayes' book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, is the best volume on this topic so far. I have included links to Stephen Hayes' articles in hopes that concerned citizens will learn even more from his fine work on this vital matter.  Deroy Murdock

STEPHEN HAYES' ARTICLES
ON HUSSEIN AND TERROR


LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK ON AMAZON.COM

*    *    *

Other authors examine Saddam Hussein's terror ties



1. "The Paper Trail: Newly released documents provide more evidence of Saddam's terror ties," By Laurie Mylroie, OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street Journal online) Sunday, April 2, 2006 GO TO ARTICLE
2. "Iraqi Perspectives Project: A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam's Senior Leadership," By Kevin M. Woods, et al, Joint Center for Operational Analysis, U.S. Defense Department, Spring 2006. GO TO ARTICLE [PDF]

3. "Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? / Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" ABCNews.com, March 23, 2006 GO TO ARTICLE

4. "Team W's Unilateral Disarmament," New York Post, March 6, 2006 GO TO ARTICLE

5. "Open the Iraq Files: American spooks don't want to release Saddam's secrets," Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2006 GO TO ARTICLE

6. "Saddam's Documents: What they tell us could save American lives today," Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2006 GO TO ARTICLE

7. "Saddam and al Qaeda: There's abundant evidence of connections," By Claudia Rosett, Wall Street Journal Europe, July 13, 2005 GO TO ARTICLE

8. "Saddam's Terrorist Ties," By Laurie Mylroie, The New York Sun, October 19, 2004 GO TO ARTICLE

*    *    *

CONTACT INFORMATION

Please direct media inquiries and appearance requests to: media@husseinandterror.com.
Readers may send comments to: feedback@husseinandterror.com.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 28, 2011)

Yea but but...Gaddafi is way worse than Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler combined. Well that's what the Bombers are telling us anyway. Man,the propaganda on this Libyan War sure is strong and is becoming more bizarre by the day. I swear i just read an article where the Allies are actually claiming Gaddafi's forces are all hopped up on Viagra and are raping children. Now come on,who actually believes that Bullshit? Haven't people learned anything from Wikileaks? Governments lie to their people 24/7. This Libyan War is just one big lie. That's just fact.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Yea but but...Gaddafi is way worse than Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler combined. Well that's what the Bombers are telling us anyway. Man,the propaganda on this Libyan War sure is strong and is becoming more bizarre by the day. I swear i just read an article where the Allies are actually claiming Gaddafi's forces are all hopped up on Viagra and are raping children. Now come on,who actually believes that Bullshit? Haven't people learned anything from Wikileaks? Governments lie to their people 24/7. This Libyan War is just one big lie. That's just fact.



I have been told so many time Saddam was not a terrorist
And there it is
Every time I post that thread it goes dead quite


----------



## ROBESPIERRE (Apr 28, 2011)

The USA invaded Iraq for both economic and strategic reasons. I think it is good that Iraq is in Western hands and under Western control. I hope our economy benefits from the Iraqi occupation. Needless to say, the Iraqis will benefit from the US occupation and American cultural influence. One must understand just how dangerous and culturally backward these Muslim countries are.

Crying about dead or injured Iraqi civilians is hypocracy. You never sobbed over the hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians you killed during WW2.  Did you? War is War. It is a dirty job, but it is a job that must be done in order to keep the _*civilized world*_ a safe place to live. The world is getting smaller each day. There is simply is _*no more room*_ for crackpot dictators and theocratic regimes. (and this includes P.R. of China). They must be put swiftly out of commision by somebody. This task has been assigned by history to the USA & its NATO allies and nobody else.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

ROBESPIERRE said:


> The USA invaded Iraq for both economic and strategic reasons. I think it is good that Iraq is in Western hands and under Western control. I hope our ecnomy benefits from the Iraqi occupation. Needless to say, the Iraqis will benefit from the US occupation and American cultural influence. One must understand just how dangerous and culturally backward these Muslim countries are.
> 
> Crying about dead or injured Iraqi civilians is hypocracy. You never sobbed over the hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians you killed during WW2.  War is War. It is a dirty job, but it is a job that must done in order to make the _*civilized world*_ a safer place to live in. The world is getting smaller each day. Ther is simply is no more room for crackpot dictators and theocratic regimes. They must be put swiftly out of commision by somebody. This task has been assigned by history to the USA & its NATO Allies.



Common sense thread
Thanks


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 28, 2011)

TGry to be a little consise.

I'll play one more time

"Hussein, while still in power
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, *burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism*, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at *Halabjah*, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.

Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? *Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism*?

It was an act of war not eco-terrorism.  Retreating armies (Allies in WWII) often destroy what might be used by the enemy.  Since the invasion was the results of Kuwait's over-production of it's OPEC limit, it was Saddams way of punishing them.

At the time Halabjah was gassed, then President Raygun, just like he did when reports were confirmed that Iraq was using gas against Iran, refused to sanction Iraq and kept them as a favored nation status.

The US State department confirmed the year GW took office that Saddam had ties to local groups fighting in Palestine and Iran.  No connection to groups with a world wide range of operations like al Queda.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 28, 2011)

In conclusion the Invasion of Iraq was a success for the US military regardles of the reason for the invasion.  However the Occupation quickly unraveled into a civil war.  To allow the situation to deteriorate like that makes the whole venture a failure.


----------



## sinister59 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> George Costanza said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



if you saw people not American people being slaughtered , you would say we are not world life savers ? 

not arguing with you whine on helping people being killed by their own government after all I think wee should sit back enjoy the violence and then talk to the winner . 

 but some people just want to help . 

ya I don't get it either .


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Apr 28, 2011)

That Gaddafi is a bad dude. We just gots to kill him!! But ole Saddam wasn't so bad. Yea some people will delude themselves into believing anything if they want to believe it badly enough. Now it's time to murder Gaddafi and his Family. That's the in-thing with the Left/Democrats these days i guess. This Libyan War is a real farce. Its very sad.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



You have no class, cracker?
do your DD
I hate to use this link, it has so much information
but you leave me no choice
read it or shut up
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
Introduction


Saddam Hussein, after being captured by 
U.S. forces in Iraq on December 13, 2003
Here he is, the man they called &#8220;The Butcher of Baghdad,&#8221; Mr. Saddam Hussein, shortly after U.S. soldiers pulled him from his so-called spider hole in Iraq. How bewildered he must have felt. Not so long before, he was sitting pretty.  


Hussein, while still in power
Here he was in his glory days, perhaps relishing the fact that he had invaded Kuwait, burned its oil fields in a dastardly act of eco-vandalism, killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves.

Did he still possess Weapons of Mass Death? Seemingly not, at least not in the quantities America and its allies expected. But wasn't there another reason America and its Coalition partners invaded Iraq? Didn't Saddam Hussein have ties to terrorism?

The notion that he did not is an article of faith among the critics of President Bush, Tony Blair and their allies. Saddam Hussein, they argue, knew little if anything about terrorism, especially al-Qaeda. Listen to a few of these more notable detractors:  






&#8220;I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism,&#8221; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flatly declared in an October 21, 2003 essay published in Australia&#8217;s Melbourne Herald Sun.1  





Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright >


	&#8220;Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one,&#8221; Senator Ted Kennedy said October 16, 2003.2 &#8220;We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not.&#8221;  


*Edited due to copywrite violations-Meister*


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> ROBESPIERRE said:
> 
> 
> > The USA invaded Iraq for both economic and strategic reasons. I think it is good that *Iraq is in Western hands and under Western control.* I hope our ecnomy benefits from the Iraqi occupation. Needless to say, the Iraqis will benefit from the US occupation and American cultural influence. One must understand just how dangerous and culturally backward these Muslim countries are.
> ...



How is that common sense when he states that iraq is under western control and one of your claims that it was a success is that iraq is now an independent nation where their people make the calls?? 

That seems to be a contradiction so how is that an example of common sense??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > TGry to be a little consise.
> ...



So you read his and instead of responding to the actual content you cut, paste and spam someone elses opinions even as you faill to offer anything REAL or of your own. LOL

WOW!

BTW a link does not make the source valid and everything listed on that source irrefutable. Anyone can create a webpage and post anything that they want to, the fact that you can provide a link to it doesn't make it true.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ROBESPIERRE said:
> ...



I am at a place here with the liberal mind that, how do you people get where you are?
The common sense portion of it had allot to do with the benefits that 100,000s of brave troops volunteered bring to that country
never mind


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It was irrelevant the first two times that you spammed it as a response and it does nothing to address the actual content of my post. 
Furthermore you do realize that you further prove what a parrot you are as you continue to only cut, paste and spam other peoples opinions as a response to anything and everything even though they have NOTHING to do with what was actually said, don't you? 


NOW, how about you go back to my post and answer the questions posed to you based on your spin and stop spamming the board with your irrelevant nonresponsive parroting?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3580982-post559.html


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Refute it
any where you want to start is fine with me
You get the 1/2 of the story that the main stream media forgot this part after Bush was elected and you do not like it
Now all you can say is its irrefutable
the source even allows you to contact the source and gives so many links to back that info up it is nuts
and you come back with that?
Its called doing your DD 
you judge one of our presidents and the choices, troops giving there lives, you make that judgement on the DD people done for you, with agendas
1/2-1/4 truths
yea I have an agenda
Its called the whole truth


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



LOL So you admit that only a "portion" of it was common sense and even though you didn't focus only on that "portion" in your response and despite your failure to specify which "portion" that you were calling common sense, your failure to do so somehow refelcts negatively on me?? LOL

BTW are you now admitting that a "portion" of his post (not thread) contradicts your own position even though you referred to the "thread" (aka post) as a whole as "common sense?" 

In case you missed it, your failures don't say anything about me but your desperate need to try to insult me for pointing out your failures does reflect poorly on you.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Actually it's called an OPINION not the truth. Again providing a link does not make everything on it true. No matter how much you wish to beleive that is true it will not make it so. 
Keep spamming as if you beleive that your spam is a response to any and every post even if it does not actually address what was said, apparently that's all that you have to offer.


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



question?
what question
and let me add
spam?
Your ignoring it makes it allot more than spam
look you liberals kept claiming Saddam was everything but a bad person
I provide information to prove otherwise and you want to change the subject
not a chance


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Prove any of it not to be true
You have every chance
its your statement that claims none of it is true, not mine
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml
here is one from CBS news


----------



## JRK (Apr 28, 2011)

Above drsmith72 called me a parrot for providing a link that anyone can read and decide for them selves whether or not any of it is true
I can understand why a person would have been against removing Saddam from power with force and spending the next 5 years fighting terrorist in Iraq instead of America
What I cannot understand is why is it when the other 1/2 of the truth comes out the left goes ballistic

Saddam was a Terrorist
plain and simple
He invaded Kuwait in 1991
he was allowed to keep his power, under the resolve that came from the UN
he did not hold up to his end
he was selling oil on the black market and got caught according to our own US senate

OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL

The link i have provided and called a spammer "Philanthropy of terror" has more links than you can count to confirm and re-confirm most of whats on there
and What does the Lib do?
gets mad
and then calls me a parrot
Hmmmmm
makes no sense to me


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



That would be QUESTIONS that you failed to answer and now pretend don't exist. SO are you really this ignorant or are you just playing that way so you can try to justify avoiding questions of your arguments.



drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > We did when GWB was president
> ...



and



drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > To start with I am 100% against all violence
> ...



and



drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Thats 1998, not 2003
> ...



and



drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
> ...



and



drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
> ...



those are SOME of the questions that you avoided. Care to take answer them?? 





JRK said:


> and let me add
> spam?



yes you added spam. I hope that answers your question.



JRK said:


> Your ignoring it makes it allot more than spam



Not ignoring it just calling it what it is, and it is Biased rigthwing opinion based propaganda. Any reader with any common sense would tell you that the guy is presenting his OPINIONS laced with out of context quotes and baseless assumptions. 

Here is an example. The author goes into a rant about iraq and alqaeda and yet he presents a chart that shows iraq support of different terrorist groups but al qaeda is NOT in the chart. So why present that in an argument trying to link alqaeda to saddam when it does not show a link?? It's obvious that the auther is trying to claim that saddam is linked to al qaeda because saddam provided support to other terrorists in the past.


In other words the author of your link is being dishonest. 



JRK said:


> look you liberals kept claiming Saddam was everything but a bad person
> I provide information to prove otherwise and you want to change the subject
> not a chance



Please explain the words that you are trying to put in my mouth. What are you trying to claim that I said about saddam?? Please provide something of substance to support your claims. Furthermore, how is asking YOU to provide a real source and not some rightwing propaganda changing the subject?? 

Do you just make shite up as you go along?? 

Now let's see if you will actually answer the questions and address the actual content of my post or will you just spam some more nonresponsive bs??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



What is your argument again?? You have spammed nonresponsive bs to almost every post to the point that you stopped making an actual argument of your own pages ago. 

BTW when and where did I claim "none of it is true" as you claim I did?? Fact is that YOU claimed it was all fact and the "whole" truth. I merely poited out to you that it is an opinion based article and just because you provide a link to it, it doesn't make it true.

Now if you are done trying to rephrase what I said and put words into my mouth why don't you get back on topic and start addressing what I actually said for a change??


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Above drsmith72 called me a parrot for providing a link that anyone can read and decide for them selves whether or not any of it is true



Nice attempt to once again rephrase what i said and put words into my mouth. I called you a parrot because you kept spamming your cut and paste bs as if it were a response to any and all posts even though it failed to address the actual content of the post. 
You are "parroting" and presenting someone else's opinions as you pretend that those OPINIONS are irrefutable fact.  




JRK said:


> I can understand why a person would have been against removing Saddam from power with force and spending the next 5 years fighting terrorist in Iraq instead of America
> What I cannot understand is why is it when the other 1/2 of the truth comes out the left goes ballistic



You claim your link presents the whole truth then PROVE IT. I gave an example of the author of your previous link making opinion based assertions so where is your proof that it's the WHOLE truth?? 



JRK said:


> Saddam was a Terrorist
> plain and simple.
> He invaded Kuwait in 1991



Yes he did and prior to that the US supported him and removed him from the list of nations that sponsor terror. Thank you reagan. 



JRK said:


> he was allowed to keep his power, under the resolve that came from the UN



what was it that you said earlier?? 



JRK said:


> 7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN



LOL and yet you are the one constantly bringing up the UN as the justification for W's CHOICE to invade. LOL 



JRK said:


> he did not hold up to his end



and nether did W. You do realize that he went against the UN and their resolution when he kicked the inspectors out while claiming he was doing so to enforce UN resolutions?? LOL 



JRK said:


> he was selling oil on the black market and got caught according to our own US senate
> 
> OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL



Yes he was a bad guy, bad guys do bad things. Do you have a real point?



JRK said:


> The link i have provided and called a spammer "Philanthropy of terror" has more links than you can count to confirm and re-confirm most of whats on there
> and What does the Lib do?
> gets mad
> and then calls me a parrot
> ...



Do you actually believe that your attempts to mischaracterize what I actually said substantiates any of the claims that you make?? 

Hmmmmm
makes no sense to me


----------



## JRK (Apr 29, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



I have offered you so much that I have been told I offered you to much
you said it was irrefutable
I said prove it and you cannot
You have an issue with the war in Iraq, that is your right
you post why
I have gave you links to dispute your whys and you do not like it
Mr Smith, it is time to own up to the fact that there are 2 sides to every story, denial is not a river in Egypt


----------



## drsmith1072 (Apr 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You do realize that you have already responded to this post previously and I have already responded to your response don't you?? 

If you can't follow the thread how can anyone take your spin on how you claim things went in this thread seriously?? 

Furthermore, IF you claim I said something please PROVE that I actually said it instead of merely claiming that I did. 
It's obvious that you don't have a clue as to what is going on so it would be best for you IF you would take the time and actually look at and read what I actually said then post what i actually said following or preceding what you think I said. 

Apparently, that is about the only way for you to figure out that what you believe I said does not match what I actually said.


----------



## JRK (Apr 29, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Was this thread about the war in Iraq?
I ask a simple question and as a typical liberal event we ended up here
It is never about the issue
its all ways about the spin 
I have had enough Mr Smith
I ask you to prove any item i have shared with you to be un true
for example

This is straight from the DOD
The main stream media as well as you ignore this
this is a game breaker
Saddam stated these items had been destroyed

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the 

here is another
Iraq Uranium Canada | Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times
The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

I mean where do you reach a point in which one says, well i was against the war because I am against wars, but I could see where there where issues with this entire situation after 9-11

The problem from day one with this event is there are all ways 2 sides of the story. Your side jumps up and down and says Bush lied and people died
Bush never lied
There was allot of things said that where not to the level that the press led people to believe
but he never really lied
WMDs where found
Saddam had nuclear ambitions
UN sanctions had been ignored
There where ties with Saddam and Al Qaeda
And him saying that Saddam had ties to 9-11 came from the same intel every-one had
Context of 'September 17, 2001: Bush Tells His Advisers &#8216;I Believe Iraq Was Involved&#8217; in 9/11 Attacks'
he issue of possible Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks is debated in a National Security Council meeting. According to journalist Bob Woodward, President Bush ends the debate by saying, I believe Iraq was involved, but Im not going to strike them now. I dont have the evidence at this point. Bush says wants to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicates there will be plenty of time to do that later. Right now his focus is mainly on Afghanistan. [WOODWARD, 2002, PP. 99] At the time Bush says this, no evidence has emerged possibly linking Iraq to 9/11. One day later, an account of hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague will become known, but it will ultimately be discredited (see September 18, 2001).
Entity Tags: National Security Council, George W. Bush, Bob Woodward
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press  
Information about the alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between 9/11 plotter Mohamed Atta and Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani is leaked to the Associated Press, which reports, A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/18/2001; NEW YORK TIMES, 11/19/2003 SOURCES: UNNAMED US OFFICIAL] A long series of confirmations and refutations of this story will take place over the next several years, as some politicians try to make it a key argument to justify why the US should invade Iraq (see September 18, 2001-April 2007).
Entity Tags: Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, Mohamed Atta
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Context of 'September 18, 2001: Alleged Meeting Between Atta and Iraqi Diplomant Leaked to Press'

Now there is just a few examples of items that really happened
what now?
another lashing that has nothing to do with issues?


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So in other words you can't answer any of the questions that I ACTUALLY asked or comment on anything that I ACTUALLY said and can only continue to spam your "facts" even as you fail to show they have any relevance to anything that I have ACTUALLY said?

WOW!

Look back and the previous page and try answering a few of those quesitons that I reposted just for you. 

P.S. YES, this thread is about the iraq war or did you miss the title



> Why would anyone continue to claim the* iraqi war *was a failure?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons  (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them.  No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague?  Naw.....

 Cheney said: Weve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Host Tim Russert then asked him: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?

Cheney replied: We dont know. I mean, weve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm 

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.


----------



## JRK (May 2, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article

Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search


----------



## BlindBoo (May 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Your Cheney quote is correct
> Your Bush analogy is correct
> Your view of the munitions is correct
> *The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article*
> ...




This was from the article you posted:

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Hussein's nuclear efforts. U.N. inspectors had documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the senior U.S. official said.


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




So in your first semi non spam post your argument is basically, he was dishonest so that is proiof that he must have lied about other things as well?? LOL 


Again why is it that you can bring up UN sanctions being ingored when you tell others 



JRK said:


> 7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN



If it is ok for you to try and justify the invasion by claiming saddam violated UN resolutions the why isn't ok for anyone else to bring up how W went against the UN and their resolutions when he kicked the inspectors out before they could finish their job even as he was trying to go after Iraq for violating UN resolutions??


----------



## LibocalypseNow (May 2, 2011)

Bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Just ask Gaddafi and his family. What did his Son and Grandchildren have to do with anything? Seriously,the Allies,UN,and NATO should be prosecuted for War Crimes. Murdering the man's Grandchildren is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## JRK (May 2, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I do not need to justify it, it happened
we won
You know this circle with you can go on for ever
Your debating why we invaded, I just stated it was the right thing to do
You want to drag in the UN, thats fine with me
I was showing and have shown that the UN was concerned about Anthrax and other WMDs not accounted for weeks before we invaded
you know Mr. Smith Saddam did this to his self. My biggest issue with you is I never hear that from you

And spam?
All I was doing was rebutting the same BS from the left with the same Links
Big brother did not like it
thats the only reason I stopped


----------



## thespook (May 2, 2011)

george phillip speaks truth


----------



## Antiderivative (May 2, 2011)

lol@the yellow cake arguments. 

Sodium is more dangerous to us.


----------



## idb (May 3, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons  (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them.  No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.
> 
> The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.
> 
> ...



Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> lol@the yellow cake arguments.
> 
> Sodium is more dangerous to us.



That is information
not a statement
The liberal mid does not understand that it takes information to Understand an event that needs resolution
Thats information, its all that it is


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

idb said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons  (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them.  No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.
> ...



Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001


----------



## georgephillip (May 3, 2011)

*What's your definition of terrorism?*

"The use of coercive means *aimed at civilian populations* in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"? 

The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court, and we are also the only country that rejected a Security Council resolution calling for ALL states to observe international law.

Remember Oklahoma City?

"Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut. 

"I didn&#8217;t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left. 

"It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn&#8217;t like and whom they missed. *It was not very secret*."

Your indifference to US state-sponsored terror makes your criticisms of Saddam's crimes appear hypocritical, at best. It also blinds you to the fact many of Saddam's crimes only occurred because the US provided many of the weapons he used.

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *What's your definition of terrorism?*
> 
> "The use of coercive means *aimed at civilian populations* in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"?
> 
> ...



What?
And as far as the bombing in Beirut, are you saying we had US citizens blow up a Mosque?
I am having trouble following that

Now one I understand clearly is that Saddam's crimes where only because he had the weapons to perform those crimes
Thats the same as saying colt made the 45, so colt is the reason we have murder in this country

With respect to your opinion there is allot of information out there that its in peoples  best interest to use against us
You have picked up on this information as it is 100% fact with no 1/2-1/4 truths in it

Saddam was told by the world what to do in 1991
he did not even come close
Bush Sr made a HUGE mistake not finishing this in 1991
Clinton seen it coming, for the right reasons
9-11, Saddam had no choice

It is that simple


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You don't need to justify it and yet what is your purpose in spamming this thread with your endless line up of rightwing propaganda for if it's not an attempt to justify the invasion???

WOW! first you "forgot" the topic if this thread and now after pages upon pages of you defending and trying to justify the invasion you are now claiming that you don't need to. LOL




JRK said:


> You want to drag in the UN, thats fine with me



Your whole argument is based on WMD's and iraq's violation of UN resolution as a justification for the invasion. YOU continue to bring up the UN even as you told others not to come at you with "that BS" even though your entire argument is based on saddam not "keeping his word" and destroying all of his WMDs.




JRK said:


> I was showing and have shown that the UN was concerned about Anthrax and other WMDs not accounted for weeks before we invaded
> you know Mr. Smith Saddam did this to his self.



Do you NOT see that this is yet another example of you bringing up the UN?? That is what your whole argument is about so why is it that you claim that I am the one bringing it up when it is the core of your entire argument??



JRK said:


> My biggest issue with you is I never hear that from you



Yes he was a bad guy but he did not CHOOSE to invade his own country with the US military. Our CiC at the time made that CHOICE. Don't you think he should be responsibile for his CHOICE?



JRK said:


> And spam?
> All I was doing was rebutting the same BS from the left with the same Links
> Big brother did not like it
> thats the only reason I stopped



In order to rebut you need to say something that addresses what has ACTUALLY been said. Your problem is that you were just spamming the thread with a cut and paste of the whole site while not offering anything SPECIFIC about what you were trying to rebut.


----------



## dvinman (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



"What country ended the dictatorship in Iraq, where there is now freedom of speech, and elections where votes count?"

I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to think that Iraq is better off now;

better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years, better now with the most important museum in the world ravaged and its artifacts taken to UK and USA, better now with most of its university professors and its scientists gone to other countries, an enormous brain drain, better now with cluster bombs all over which will take another 50 years to explode and the cancer from depleted uranium.


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

dvinman said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Do you have any links to back your information?
I mean 1.7 million dead?
uranium? what uranium and what cluster bombs
Dude chill out


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Not according to reagan who removed iraq from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism. 

Furthermore would you care to address what blind boo actually said or is sidestepping all that you have to offer?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



His support was limited to para-military groups fighting in Palestine and Iran since he was kicked out of Kuwait.  These groups never had access to the more advance weapons he had.


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Side step?
there has been over 600 responses with this thread
there has nothing been side stepped
What does Reagen have to do with the events of 1991 thru 2003? 
Look he acted stupidly with these events, and according to many sources the very Scud missiles he used in 1991, we help build
What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?


----------



## JRK (May 3, 2011)

I posted this thread and ask the simple question

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nue-to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure.html

And the answers I have got lately are about 1980s
Saddam Hussein is what that war was about in 2003
Not Ronald Reagan and what occurred in the 80s when Iran was at war with Iraq and we chose to support Iraq

Saddam had 18 months to get out
he chose not to
Saddam had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions
He chose not to
That war was about nothing else
It was a success
Saddam Hussein is no longer a problem

Why do you Mr Smith and You Blind Boo think we failed here?
did we fail here because Saddam Hussein used weapons he got from us in a manner that he was not suppose to?
Did he Gas Iranians and his own people with those weapons, no matter where he got them, because we helped in the 80s? and that makes that war a failure?
this world is not a better place because of it?

by the way, there are people like Colin Powell that deny much of this

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''


----------



## idb (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> dvinman said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



What do you mean "what uranium"?


----------



## idb (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> I posted this thread and ask the simple question
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nue-to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure.html
> 
> ...



A reply based on 2011 might be "do you still have American troops dying in Iraq?".


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



YOU were the one that talked about focusing on where it began when you tried to blame clinton. However, the FACT is and has been shown in this very thread that saddam was supported by reagan and his administration when he was using chemical weapons and removed from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism on reagans watch. 

Dude do you realize how all over the place you are?? First you look back for excuses and justifications for the invasion now you ask "What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?" 

OMG You literally are retarded aren't you?? 

Get a clue, stop spamming and come back when yo have something valid to offer.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2011)

dvinman said:


> better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years



Why not say 4 billion dead? I mean, since you're just making shit up, why not REALLY pump it up?

[Documented civilian deaths from violence

100,627  109,924 ]

Iraq Body Count

Hey, leftists lie - it's just what you do...


----------



## georgephillip (May 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *What's your definition of terrorism?*
> ...


Have you noticed any tendency in US foreign policy to use coercive means *aimed at civilians* in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims?

"*# 1983* - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.

*# 1985* - CIA's revenge backfires. *Lebanese CIA agents* detonate truck bomb in Beirut in a failed attempt to assassinate Shia leader, Sheik Fadlallah. Eighty-three civilians killed, 240 wounded."

Not So Fast, Sen. Lott 

Do you understand Saddam would never have possessed the precursors necessary to manufacture his poison gas or the helicopters to use the finished product "on his own people" without Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell?

What authority did Bush Sr possess to "finish" Saddam in '91?
Wasn't his mandate limited to evicting Iraqi conscripts from Kuwait?

Clinton has also committed his own crimes against civilians:

"Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? That&#8217;s not the CIA. 

"That&#8217;s the Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported.

The following question and answer sums up just how simple all this really is:

*Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the doctrinal system?*

A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low&#8211;intensity warfare.' That&#8217;s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low&#8211;intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they&#8217;re almost the same. 

"Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims." 

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> "*# 1983* - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.



Are you fucking stupid?

The shit you make up and post is just head shaking.

Lebanon was a Christian region going back to the 1300's - dumbfuck.


----------



## georgephillip (May 3, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "*# 1983* - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.
> ...


*Think any of these guys were "made up", Einstein?*

" Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World II..."

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were the first Christians in Lebanon terrorists waving broadswords and wearing big red crosses on their chests?


----------



## JRK (May 4, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



Clinton?
Blame Clinton on what?
Dude do you realize how much with each response your age level goes down?
And where exactly was that information on Saddam being a terrorist suppose to come from?
No I ask what the hell does 1981 have to do with 2003. 
Let me add that the extent of what went on ion the 80s is about as clear as to How we are going to pay for Obama care
If you have nothing to say to me in rebuttle, please do
If your going to babble, go away please
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for ''regime change'' in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.



ADS BY GOOGLE




During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com


----------



## JRK (May 4, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I have come to the conclusion your not even an American
And thats ok
as far as your assertion that we area terrorist state, I hate you feel that way when we spend billions every year helping millions and I know of no place in this country that children are raised to strap a bomb to them selves to kill themselves and as many civilians as they can

What authority did Saddam have to invade Kuwait?

Israel? Do not worry about that little country any more. you have Obama in there now
Your desire to leave those people to the mercy of terrorist is coming true
are do you prefer the oven style?
When the killing stops, the killing will stop


----------



## sparky (May 4, 2011)

measuring success?




when we see our troops march down main street in a homecoming parade imho....


----------



## JRK (May 4, 2011)

sparky said:


> measuring success?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree 
Let me add I hated this. I think the liberal thinks the Con enjoys war.
Not this one


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Ok I repsonded to all of your BS and all you have to offer is more avoidance and lame personal attacks. 



JRK said:


> Blind Boo if you go thru life and do not understand the tool called "root cause" you will never make it as far as you could



You were the one wanting to talk about the "root cause" and at one point you actually tried to blame clinton but IF you could follow a conversation and remember what you had previously said then I wouldn't have to go back and show you over and over again.

You mentioned the "root cause" and then chose to focus on events that occured AFTER reagan had helped saddam. You wanted to focus on the "root cause" and then chose to focus on a few branches of the tree and didn't even come close to the root as far as Us policy goes.

So if you are done with your avoidance, baseless personal attacks and spamming, which you obviously are not, please try to address something that I actualy said.


----------



## JRK (May 4, 2011)

drsmith1072 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...



THERE IS NOTHING TO BLAME CLINTON ABOUT, I HAVE NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT ANY OF THIS
His take on the intel was the same Bushes was
Pelosi s was
Kerrie's was
Kennedy's was
B Graham's was
Reagen helping Saddam?
You keep bringing up events that may or may not be true according to Colin Powell many are not.
Root Cause?
if you have a flat tire the root cause of that is the tire has no air, resolving that issue then is simple.
Why does the tire not hold air
The root cause of the war in Iraq was Saddam. Saddam took weapons no matter where he got them and used them for things that eventually cost him his life and his dictatorship
he Ignored
he lied
He lost

One other thing
you keep going in circles about the same thing
I am OK with that
You dis agree with everything GWB has ever done and I have ever said
I do not care

But I have never attacked you as a person
The comment about your age, I was being honest
People who debate about items that have nothing to do with the subject have never had to resolve many issues, that means there young and there very liberal, usually both
It is never personal
9-11 happened
GWB told Saddam what was coming
he didn't think GWB was telling the truth
he does now


----------



## drsmith1072 (May 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The comment about my age was an attack, spinning in a desperate attempt to justify it won't change that FACT.

Furthermore you have had plenty of other vieled personal attacks throughout this thread so please don't play dumb. 



> Root Cause?
> if you have a flat tire the root cause of that is the tire has no air, resolving that issue then is simple.
> Why does the tire not hold air
> The root cause of the war in Iraq was Saddam. Saddam took weapons no matter where he got them and used them for things that eventually cost him his life and his dictatorship



Exactly you look at the root cause and the root cause (saddam, according to you) existed and was in power BEFORE 1991 when he was helped by reagan's administration. 

You are trying to argue that the tire has no air because it can't hold air even as you ignore the events PRIOR to where you begin your argument (1991) which contributed to the problem with the tire.  

Once again you are all over the place and don't really address what was said. I am still waiting for you to go back and address previous questions that you werwe asked about your own words where your only response was to spam entire articles from websites that didn't really address what was said.

I guess I should expect another nonresponse this time around too.

BTW here is a link to a list of SOME of the questions that you had avoided previously as you asked "what question"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3584598-post581.html


----------



## BlindBoo (May 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> I posted this thread and ask the simple question
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nue-to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure.html
> 
> ...



You got the answers about the 1980's because that is when the WMD(you keep bringing up) found in Iraq were built.

The invasion was a success.  Securing and occupying the country has been a failure in that it was never secured, and a violent Civil war broke out.  Yes the Occupiers are responsible for keeping order in the occupied lands.  Mostly to me it is a failure because of the 4000+ soldiers we have lost there.

Funny to me is your relying on UNSC resolutions to condemn Saddam, yet fail to recognize the significance of the UNSC not approving military action in it final resolution to Saddam 1441.

The technology Saddam was able to aquire after Reagan took Iraq off the Supporting terrorist list allow him to build Chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore he was also able to start a clandestine Manhatten Project style Nuclear program thanks to Raygun era policies.


----------



## JRK (May 4, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I posted this thread and ask the simple question
> ...



what does it matter when they where built?
what matters is when they where not found
you know what amazes me? no where in U.N. documents or from Saddam him self does it say the U.S. gave him that stuff
Only from here

And I am going to say this until you stop trying to connect what events took place in the 80s with what events took place in the 90s and the early 2000s

You keep trying to say that if someone legally gets (owns) a gun in this country and kills someone with that gun, or threatens someone with that gun, because of the 2ND amendment we cannot prosecute him
We provided the avenue for that person to purchase that gun
It was his/her responsibility to use it with-in the laws


----------



## JRK (May 5, 2011)

We see another difference in the way the 2 men govern.
Saddam was a man of terror
he was caught
he was tried by his own people
he was hung
and no-one doubts that Saddam is dead

When a major victory or a lead 9-11 conspirator was caught or killed, we did not have the president @ the world trade center playing political games

Obama decides we the people who are trying to kill us are more of a concern to him than bringing closure to this event for the American people who want to see the documentation I am not one of them) by sealing those documents (pictures of OBL dead)
But takes to the trade center to brag on it.

Good for you W and Clinton both for not going


----------



## BlindBoo (May 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It matters because the claim was that the Iraqi regime was actively producing and stockpiling large quantities of chemcial, and biological weapons.

History is relevent

Because they were taken off the Nations who suport Terrorist list, Iraq was then able to purchased equipement from the US and our allies.  Many of the items they bought were duel use in that they could be easily converted to military use.  Chemcials came from German companies.  US companies supplied them with Biological agents.  What the US gave Saddam was billions gaurenteed loans.  France sold shit to him.  England sold shit to him.  Hell all our allied could and many did.


----------



## JRK (May 9, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



This is amazing
Iraq Connection Helped U.S. Find Bin Laden
In 2004, about six weeks after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Kurdish police nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative named Hassan Ghul in a town near the Iranian border. It wasn't long before Ghul was telling CIA interrogators about one of the organization's couriers, who used the nom-de-guerre of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

"Hassan Ghul was the linchpin" in finding and killing Osama bin Laden, a U.S. official told The Associated Press on Monday. Ghul told the United States that the Kuwaiti-born Pakistani now known to have been Sheikh Abu Ahmed, who was killed along with the terrorist chieftain he served on Monday by U.S. Navy SEALs, was a crucial figure within al-Qaida.

"Al-Kuwaiti" was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced the captured Khalid Shiekh Mohammed as al-Qaida operational commander, Ghul told the CIA.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Iraq Connection Helped U.S. Find Bin Laden 
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 21, 2011)

Qaddafi can now tell you how successful the Iraq war was. And Mubarak, and Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, and...


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 21, 2011)

The iraq war was a spectacular success by almost any measure, if obama doesn't find a way to screw it up at the last moment, and of course with President Amateur, that's a big "if".

The iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators since world war two: a person who attacked at least three neighboring countries, who certainly would have had nukes by now, who launched the first gas attack since world war one, and the first IRBM attack since world war two.  Saddam maintained rape and torture rooms all over Iraq.  He's estimated to have killed 600,000 iraqi political prisoners.  He had prisoners tied together in fields and then had grenades tossed at them.  He had had people killed by being locked in rooms with attack dogs.  He once had a general who displeased him tossed into an industrial sized paper shredder.

His wars of aggression against iran and kuwait resulted in the deaths of about one million people.  

He spent the food for oil money intended to feed iraqi children during the boycott of iraq on armanents and more palaces for himself while children starved.

The person who decries the overthrow of this savage has no soul.

In his place, the US set up a constitutional democracy, the first arab one and the second in the middle east.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 21, 2011)

And the effect of replacing one of the biggest sources of unrest, radicalization, brutality and insecurity in the ME with a Democratic government has had many benefits as we see today in Libya.


----------



## rdean (Aug 21, 2011)

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of 
legislation: 
A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam  

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

----------------------------------------------------

Where have I heard that before?  Oh, that's right, "IRAN!"

------------------------------------------------------

Houzan Mahmoud: Do Iraq's Women Miss Saddam?

Published Sunday, April 04, 2010

Women's advocacy groups say the US courtship of conservative Islamists curtailed women's rights.

-----------------------------

Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders  and many of them are under Iranian influence.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------

Everything Republicans touch always turn to shit.  It's because they start off on a foundation of lies.  Democrats being "tricked" into support, isn't real support.  Remember, Republicans lied to the entire world at the United Nations.

Now women are in burkas.  Gays are murdered (although for many Republicans, that could be a "silver lining")

This is what voting Republicans into office leads to.  They put Bible school graduates in the Justice Department.  They made corporations people, enabling Hugo Chavez to influence our elections, they put people into dangerous trailers after Katrina, they brought down the economy.  They sent our soldiers to Iraq in old and rusty equipment.  They made billions and billions off Iraq (so I guess that makes all the deaths worth it).

Is there anything they (we want him to fail) won't do?  Something too low?  Just one thing we can name?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?



Why would anyone be retarded enough to continue to claim the iraqi war was a success?

The US has no Constitutional authority to invade a foreign country to assist Israel;

Bush II murdered more Iraqis that Saddam;

Women had more rights while Saddam was in power;

Bush II succeeded in placing radical Shiites who are affiliated  with Iran in power

So STFU until you know what the fuck you are talking about.

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



what do you mean?
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GWB11 Killed no-one and if Saddam does the right thing no-one dies
If anyone has no idea what there talking about its you


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

*Who should pay for the "success" of the Iraq War?*

"While the United States focuses on its budget problems and the costs of the war, it is important to remember the price that Iraq and Iraqis have paid. It's not just the hundreds of thousands who have died during and after the war. *There are millions of refugees*. The country's infrastructure has been ruined. Corruption is flourishing..."

The Ongoing Costs of the Iraq War | FPIF


----------



## editec (Aug 22, 2011)

*



Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? 

Click to expand...

 
Because we're STILL THERE.

*


----------



## G.T. (Aug 22, 2011)

Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads. 

"stabilized?>"

How can you claim it's stabilized when we're still 40K + strong there? Bueller? Bueller?

A sharia law country with a foreign occupying police force is considered "stabilized?" Grow up, dude.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *Who should pay for the "success" of the Iraq War?*
> 
> "While the United States focuses on its budget problems and the costs of the war, it is important to remember the price that Iraq and Iraqis have paid. It's not just the hundreds of thousands who have died during and after the war. *There are millions of refugees*. The country's infrastructure has been ruined. Corruption is flourishing..."
> 
> The Ongoing Costs of the Iraq War | FPIF



The Iraqis?
do you have any links to back up your claims on lives lost?
and refugees?
Saddam had a choice


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

G.T. said:


> Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.
> 
> "stabilized?>"
> 
> ...



your calling me stupid but yet your respond to my threads
what does that make you?
1) remove Saddam: done
2) allow a democratic government to take its place: done
3) rid the country of WMDs: done
4) Kill as many terrorist as Possible: done

what more was we suppose to do?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.
> ...



Is it paid for / could we afford it? NO.
Did it change life here, for Americans, for the better? NO. People all across the Country have lost loved ones and currently MISS loved ones because of the extended and multiple deployments. Missed their kids' birthdays, Christmasses, etc. 

Is it stabilized, or are we there policing it with 40, 000+ for our health? Gee, that's a tough one. 

Democracy? You call Sharia law democracy?


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

As  far as WMDs go, these outdated yet potentially hazardous munitions found were suppose to have been destroyed
The argument of "no WMDS is not a pretty with a bow and ribbon argument
The bottom line is these munitions were suppose to have been destroyed. Saddam was lying about these
how many others we never found or had been moved were there?
it odes not matter now 

Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
from the DOD

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of


----------



## editec (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.
> ...


 
We _WERE_ supposed to LEAVE.

We're_ still_ there.

Ergo, we have as yet FAILED to accomplish the original mission.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*COMMIE!*

We're still in Germany.
We're still in Japan.
We're still in Mexico...oops...they're next.

Anyway...stop hating and hand over your Social Security.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Who should pay for the "success" of the Iraq War?*
> ...


*"They are the forgotten casualties of the Iraq war*. 

"Fully one in six Iraqis (4.7 million people) fled or were forced from their homes following the U.S. led invasion in 2003, and most have not returned.  Close to half are living in neighboring countries such as Jordan and Syria, while the remainder are uprooted within Iraq's borders."

How many Iraqis have Dick and Dubya taken in?
Dick and Dubya had the choice.
Saddam's choice was suicide or lynching.

Iraqi Refugees


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, WWII was a failure?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

There was no need to remove Saddam Hussein that was worth 4000+ American lives, tens of thousands of wounded, and 2 trillion or more in eventual cost.

By those measures, the Iraq war was a failure of American foreign policy.  And GW Bush, as the only one who had the authority to choose that course of action, that failure of American foreign policy,

is solely responsible.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> [
> 
> How many Iraqis have Dick and Dubya taken in?





Over 80,000.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> There was no need to remove Saddam Hussein that was worth 4000+ American lives, tens of thousands of wounded, and 2 trillion or more in eventual cost.






In your opinion? Ok.


----------



## editec (Aug 22, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *
> ...


 

Germany, Japan and Mexico, ALSO examples of failures of American foreign policy.

And that is especially surprising as in the cases of Japan and Germany, they started out as successful foreign policies.

AS to Social Security?

It turned out that I was one of its big winners.

NOt that I am especially happy with that winning, since it demanded that my life and health had to disintegrate before I could start winning the SSD game.

But I am thankful to this nation for giving me and my family the support we needed when we needed it.

And, as an added bonus, thanks to my illness I found the time to create CBO: the Rosetta Project.

On balance, I suspect that my overall contributions to this society and the world's commweal are actually greater than they were had I continued to teach or work as a computer consultant for Apple.

The irony of that weird fact often amuses me.

My life happened while I was planning other things.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There was no need to remove Saddam Hussein that was worth 4000+ American lives, tens of thousands of wounded, and 2 trillion or more in eventual cost.
> ...



Oh, sorry for posting an opinion.  I mistook this forum as a venue for expressing opinions.

What was the need?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

editec said:


> Germany, Japan and Mexico, ALSO examples of failures of American foreign policy.
> 
> And that is especially surprising as in the cases of Japan and Germany, they started out as successful foreign policies.




What exactly are you talking about?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



No.  Post WWII policy has been a failure.  We should be out of Europe and Japan, now.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

Why the second Iraq war was a failure:

1.  Loss of Amaerican lives.
2.  Added to the deficit.
3.  Has not nor will not solve differences between Shiite and Sunni.
4.  Created a power vacuum without a strongman leader in a tribal society.  Result will be civil war when we leave.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > 1) remove saddam
> ...



how many trillions of dollars wasted to try and stablize that nation?


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Why the second Iraq war was a failure:
> 
> 1.  Loss of Amaerican lives.
> 2.  Added to the deficit.
> ...



1) I will make no comment on the loss of american lives other than thats part of war that Saddam could have prevented by doing the right thing
2) The failed stimulus added as much to the deficit. Supporting the UN added to the deficit. Closing the base we had in Saudi took away from the deficit
Pakistani Defence Forum > Us Ends Closes Operations At Saudi Base
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | FoxNews.com
3) that was no our intent no more than the south and north in this country
4) power vacuum ? power vacuum? do you have any proof of that? they voted there leaders inn or is that fact mean nothing?


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...



yo mean less than 1 trillion dont you?
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | FoxNews.com


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


*Out of 4.7 million.*

Syria has taken in more than a million Iraqis, a number equal to about 10% of Syria's total population.
Jordan hosts nearly 750,000 Iraqis or about 24% of its total population.

Any word on how many Iraqis  Dick and Dubya are personally hosting?

America&#039;s Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees

*Do you have a link for that 80,000 number?*


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Why the second Iraq war was a failure:
> ...



The first too points I made will remain with us regardless of outcome in Iraq.
Point three is why installing any national government in Iraq has failed, outside a strongman leading by fear and use of force.  Its history plain and simple.  Not sure what more "proof" you need.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

G.T. said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



GT you have right to dis agree
the public felt very different
I hate talking about the troops< you know why?
those heroes volunteered for there duties and you liberals claim there being forced to do this
I hate that
by years end that number will be around 10,000

Troops In Iraq | Iraq U.S. troops: U.S. willing to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq past year's end, officials say - Los Angeles Times

you think democracy is funny?
2010 national election

Main article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010
The Federal Supreme Court gave its opinion on 13 May 2009 following the request of the Speaker of the Council of Representatives to the Court in its capacity as interpreter of the Constitution under Article 93(2). The issue arising was the interpretation of Article 56 of the constitution which states:
First: The electoral term of the Council of Representatives shall be four calendar years, starting with its first session and ending with the conclusion of the fourth year.
Second: The new Council of Representatives shall be elected forty-five days before the conclusion of the preceding electoral term. The previous election had been on 15 December 2005.
The opening session of the Council of Representatives had been 16 March 2006 (the swearing in session) and the first substantive session of the Council of Representatives was then held on 22 April 2006. The Court was of the opinion that the swearing in session on 16 March 2006 was the "first session" as required by Article 56(First). It therefore followed that the conclusion of the 4th year would be on 15 March 2010 and that the election should be 45 days prior to 15 March 2010, i.e. 30 January 2010. The court decided that the Calendar year referred to was the 365 day Gregorian year (and not for example the 360 day Hijri year).
[edit]


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



we are still in Iraq with a military presence. It is still costing us, the iraqi invasion and occupation.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I would argue those cost would be no different if those troops were in Germany at this point. there in the green zone for the most part and the expense it took to house them is done


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.
> ...



Makes him a teacher.  When you going to start learning?

1.  Will just exchange one strongman for another down the road.
2.  Nope, will not happen from external pressure.
3.  Which is it?  Either they had them or they didn't.  Since they weren't there is point is moot.
4.  And just what number do you have for terrorists killed?  I suggest you created more than you killed.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Do those figures take into account the following:

1.  long term care of wounded
2.  replacement cost of men and materials lost in the war
3.  cost of ongoing, future presence in Iraq
4.  interest on debt accumulated paying for war
5.  premium on price of oil that occurred throughout the war and was attributed to the war


??


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh, and when you're calculating the cost of the Iraq war, don't forget,

it started in 1991.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Germany, Japan and Mexico, ALSO examples of failures of American foreign policy.
> ...




Hey, if you used that many drugs, you'd be lucky to sound as lucid as editec.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> No.  Post WWII policy has been a failure.  We should be out of Europe and Japan, now.



So you are openly saying that the Marshall plan failed?


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Oh, and when you're calculating the cost of the Iraq war, don't forget,
> 
> it started in 1991.



your joking right?
well its good thing we put an end to it huh


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> your joking right?



He's not joking, he's desperate. The left is in full panic as the watch it all fall apart. Sure, Obama is done, but what about the fallout? The house already went to the GOP, right now they're looking at the Senate and the Exec joining the House. 

Two years ago these people were convinced that they had a mandate to rewrite the constitution and remold the country in a brave, new world. Now it's all in pieces on the ground. Yes, Obama got healthcare through, but it's fascism, not the socialism that the left dreamed of. The public is resistant and wants it repealed. Loyalty oaths by the Hollywood airheads are a thing of the past and people openly oppose Dear Leader.

He's desperate and frustrated, it just didn't work the way he dreamed it would.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Who pays for these contractors.

Overseas Contractor Count for Second Quarter 2011 « Overseas Civilian Contractors


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why would those expenses be any different in South Korea?
We have reached that point that these are troops who are volunteers
it cost the same for those troops in Iraq as it does in Japan
The troops in Iraq are in the green zone most all of time
Its SOP


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> As  far as WMDs go, these outdated yet potentially hazardous munitions found were suppose to have been destroyed
> The argument of "no WMDS is not a pretty with a bow and ribbon argument
> The bottom line is these munitions were suppose to have been destroyed. Saddam was lying about these
> how many others we never found or had been moved were there?
> ...




ROTF.

Yeah I clearly remember President Bush telling the folks here at home that we were in mortal danger from Saddam's small quantity of "_outdated yet potentially hazardous munitions_" he aquired and use while was an ally of the Raygun/Bush Administration, that was not destroyed when he destroyed all the other.

Wait that's not how it happend at all it it.  Nope, were were told that Saddam was actively producing and stockpiling huge amounts of new chemical and bilogical weapons and that he had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program too.

It was not true and both Rice and Powell knew it. They both are on record saying of how Saddam was contained and had not even been able to rebuilt his conventional army from the drubbing they got in 91.

But President Bush took advantage of the disaster on 9-11 to attack a country that had no part in the attack and was not a direct threat to our nation.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > As  far as WMDs go, these outdated yet potentially hazardous munitions found were suppose to have been destroyed
> ...


There's one man, and one man only responsible for the Iraq war......That's Sadaam himself. All he had to do was come clean. All he had to do was cooperate. He chose to continue to fake his WMD program. Chose to carry on his charade. Chose to continually rattle his sword, until Bush finally rammed it up his ass once and for all.

Sadaam Himself laid it all out.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News

Get over it lib's.....The world is a much safer place without Sadaam, or his even crazier sons in power......Deal with it, and STFU already.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It is quite a shame that "ramming it up Saddams Ass" Cost the lives of over 4000 US soldiers when he posed no significant threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

Quite lying about the reason we went and killed all those people and I'll STFU.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Quit lying about Bush lying us into war. That liberal mumbojumbo is so 2005.

Read the fucking article, and see for yourself who actually lied themself into war.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



The two lies I am talking about today are that the old chemical warheads represent the WMD claims the Bush admistration made before the invasion, and that stablizing Iraqis oil production was ever part of the Bush's war rational presented to the people.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

Bringing Democracy to Iraq is going to be a bad joke too.  Iraq is a country by geography, not religiously and politically.  Civil war will happen after we leave and the stability will be gone.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


It's all in Sadaam's confession..........All he had to do was come clean. He himself chose to continue his charade. Chose to repeatedly kick the inspectors out. Repeatedly fire on our planes. Repeatedly rattle his sword.

And, it was chemical weapons that he used on his own people....So yes, there was every reason to believe he still had them, and would use them if necessary.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

WMDs were much like our nuclear program during the Cold War.  A deterent to Iran invading Iraq.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...




HUH?

Do you ever research anything?

What "inspectors"?

What chemicals against his own people?

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Actually the Weapons inpectors were pulled out by the UN more times than they were kicked out by Saddam.  The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.  Raygun fought Congressional attempts to sanction the regime for both.  Again the claim was not that he had aquire chemical weapons in the 80's but that he was actively producing and stockpiling new weapons and especially his nuclar program, or that he had helped Al Queda plan or carry out the attacks on 9-11.  In fact those are the only two reasons Congress gave the president the power to use military force in the first place.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



They always claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

There They Go Again: The Washington Post's Iraq Tall Tale

Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons not only on the rebel Kurds but also against the Iranian troops during the war with Iran.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Actually the Weapons inpectors were pulled out by the UN more times than they were kicked out by Saddam. e.



*Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99).  According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency."  Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99). *

FAIR ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



BTW I think it's more the Bush apologist who are doing most of the lying.  President Bush had excellent writers and he could rarely be caught in an actual lied.  He would use Saddam, al Queda, and mushroom clouds in the same sentence....and that would just fright-fuck the psuedo-conned!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.



???

What Raygun administration? I did a google search and no such POTUS was elected.

Oh, I get it, it's a childish attack - kind of like spelling "Barack Obama" as "Stupid ****."


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

I could have sworn Bush, with the tacit financial support of Congress, went over to Iraq and started a war.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons not only on the rebel Kurds but also against the Iranian troops during the war with Iran.



Bullshit

*"Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover an*y. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE 
US Army War College
CIA analyst

US Army War College: NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



*The war never should have happened in the first place, How about that? American soldiers dying for oil, How about that? Invading a country for no good reason?*


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.
> ...



*Yes, except Liberals are clever, Conservatives are not.*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.
> ...


Pretty much......Sadaam's own words get thrown in their face, and this is all they have.....The worn out "Raygun" BS, along with the usual liberal deflection and spin tactics.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

Many thought that WMD and material where moved prior to the war

Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion

The CIAs chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing sufficiently credible evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year
CIA can&#39;t rule out WMD move to Syria - Washington Times
Saddam's WMDs Moved to Syria

It also should be that the the "old" and "antiquated" munitions that were found (over 500) were not old and antiquated in 1991 and that during the 90s when the UN sanctions were in place those WMDs were to be destroyed, no matter there condition (which was alot different in 1991 than they where when found)
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...


Ya' mean like Lybia?

LMAO!


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



The will of the people has a different opinion then and must now
thats why you see no polls I would assume


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *Yes, except Liberals are clever, Conservatives are not.*



You ever hear the phrase, "Clever as a sheep?"

No? You know why? Because just like leftists, sheep are fucking stupid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 22, 2011)

My friends in the military all tell me of the horrors dealing with the Bush administration post war Iraq. Fuck up after fuck up.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.
> ...



Nope.  See, the term Ray-Gun has special meaning to a President who fostered the Star Wars Missile Defense whereas "Stupid ****" is nothing more than a plain Jane insult.  Thanks for playing distract from the facts though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Nope.  See, the term Ray-Gun has special meaning to a President who fostered the Star Wars Missile Defense whereas "Stupid ****" is nothing more than a plain Jane insult.



Sorry, the term Stupid **** has a special meaning because Obama is really pretty fucking stupid, and he is a rather prissy little ****.

Also, "Ray-Gun" was a petulant and childish attack used by brainless lefties long before SDI was outlined, and before it caused your beloved USSR to fall.

No, my original statement stands, using "Raygun" instead of "Reagan" is equivalent to using "stupid ****" instead of Obama.

Both are pretty childish.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons not only on the rebel Kurds but also against the Iranian troops during the war with Iran.
> ...




Did your link say no victims?


When our "friend" Saddam was gassing the Kurds - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

The town of Halabja, with 60,000 inhabitants, lies on the southern fringe of Iraqi Kurdistan, a few miles from the border with Iran (1). On 15 March 1988 it fell to the Peshmerga resistance fighters of Jalal Talabanis Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, supported by Iranian revolutionary guards.

The next morning Iraqi bombers appeared out of a clear blue sky. The people of Halabja were used to the successive attacks and counter-attacks of the Iraq-Iran war that had ravaged the region since September 1980. They thought they were in for the usual reprisal raid. Those who had time huddled in makeshift shelters. The rest were taken by surprise. Wave after wave of Iraqi Migs and Mirages dropped chemical bombs on the unsuspecting inhabitants. The town was engulfed in a sickly stench like rotten apples. The bombing stopped at nightfall and it began to rain hard. Iraqi troops had already destroyed the local power station, so the survivors began to search the mud with torches for the dead bodies of their loved ones.

The scene that greeted them in the morning defied description. The streets were strewn with corpses. People had been killed instantaneously by chemicals in the midst of the ordinary acts of everyday life. Babies still sucked their mothers breasts. Children held their parents hands, frozen to the spot like a still from a motion picture. In the space of a few hours 5,000 people had died. The 3,200 who no longer had families were buried in a mass grave.

Pictures of the massacre taken by Iranian war correspondents were relayed throughout the world. Journalists flew in and the international press gave the unprecedented event considerable coverage


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

All things considered, we entered Iraq for all the wrong reasons. It really had nothing to do with WMD's. 

Bush wanted an easy victory in the Middle East and to democratize a country there by force. By doing so, browbeat neighboring states into further democratization. Iraq was the best target. They pissed off any neighbors who would be willing to support them. The world already aligned against Saddam once. His military forces were crap. We were already in the area. NOBODY would miss Saddam's removal. Least of all the Iraqis. 

By democratizing Iraq, we would draw in wannabe jihadis to the area to be met with military force. It would draw away potential attacks to Europe and the US. Iraq being easier for a Saudi, Syrian or Jordanian wannabe bomber to go to than the West. Draw them to Iraq, annhilate them and show the world how ruthless these Islamicists are to fellow Muslim civilians. 

The problem was, it was done too much on the cheap. We believed far too much of our own propaganda bullshit as to what would be needed for occupation and we got lazy when it came time to providing the necessary level of commitment of forces. 

That being said, Saddam had it coming. He deserved his fate. The country has toned down quite a bit since 2003-2004. 

Iraqis are really taking to democracy a lot better than expected. The civil war everyone was expecting between the Kurds, Shia and Sunni has not materialized. If anything Al Queda's attempts to spark one has actually brought Iraqis closer together. They are actually looking at political solutions to the ethnic divisions. Something one does when they want to be democratic. 

You can even say that the war helped spark the Arab Spring. Once it was seen that the West would be willing to support Arab democracies over longstanding cronies. You had an actual example of an Arab country with a democratic leadership, it undermined the sad myths that Arabs just weren't ready for democracy.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  See, the term Ray-Gun has special meaning to a President who fostered the Star Wars Missile Defense whereas "Stupid ****" is nothing more than a plain Jane insult.
> ...



Nah, your's is still a bit of a generic insult.   Thanks for playing distract from the facts though.


----------



## konradv (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > The Chemical weapons attacks against Iran and the Kurds happen during the Raygun Administration.
> ...



There's no such thing as the Democrat Party either, but there you go.  I think your your equating "Raygun" and "Stupid ****" is either projection or hypocrisy.  Take your pick.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> My friends in the military all tell me of the horrors dealing with the Bush administration post war Iraq. Fuck up after fuck up.



Your friends
who volunteered  for the military and the commander in chief
are telling you of dealing with post GWB admin Iraq?
what exactly are they telling you? being that there in the green zone and all


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> All things considered, we entered Iraq for all the wrong reasons. It really had nothing to do with WMD's.
> 
> Bush wanted an easy victory in the Middle East and to democratize a country there by force. By doing so, browbeat neighboring states into further democratization. Iraq was the best target. They pissed off any neighbors who would be willing to support them. The world already aligned against Saddam once. His military forces were crap. We were already in the area. NOBODY would miss Saddam's removal. Least of all the Iraqis.
> 
> ...



I do not totally agree with your thread
but it was done with class
for that I thank you


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM  DONE   2) STABILIZE COUNTRY   DONE  3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS   DONE   Am  missing something here?



The state of Saddam will be succeeded by a state of militant shi'ites allied with militant Shi'ite Iran.

Yeah, you forgot the most important thing.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM  DONE   2) STABILIZE COUNTRY   DONE  3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS   DONE   Am  missing something here?
> ...



Who were put in power by the will of the people
Elections in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
around 62% Of the people
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*We did not attack Lybia on our own for oil. No boots on the ground and American soldiers dying. *


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> when he posed no significant threat to the worlds remaining superpower.




If you can't comprehend a "threat" of any sort other than tanks rolling up on the beaches, then you are not yet mature enough to really discuss the matter.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Bringing Democracy to Iraq is going to be a bad joke too.  Iraq is a country by geography, not religiously and politically.





That is not true.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *Yes, except Liberals are clever, Conservatives are not.*
> ...



*Good attempt at distraction, but it would only work on people there with you on the right. *


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> WMDs were much like our nuclear program during the Cold War.  A deterent to Iran invading Iraq.





Alright, now you are going off the deep end. If you think saddam wouldn't actually use chemical weapons you are competely ignorant of history.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





If you are this completely ignorant, why bother discussing the topic?


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



*Bush had a 'reason of the month', all of them bullshit. But, those on the right believed him.*


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> American soldiers dying for oil, How about that? Invading a country for no good reason?[/B]



"No good reason" is your opinion, and history is already moving past you. The "dying for oil" canard has been given up even by most liberals at this point. Try to catch up.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



*You have no proof that one had anything to do with the other.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Hitler was democratically elected.  Hamas is democratically elected.  Iranian politicians are democratically elected.  These are no excuses for Bush's fuck ups.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You have no proof it did not


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




Are you literally incapable of seeing beyond the end of your own nose?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Uncensored made a claim, like House often does, without evidence.  U needs to support his claim.  He can't, though.


----------



## JRK (Aug 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Your comparing modern day Iraq to the third Reich?
little desperate perhaps?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Iranian politicians are democratically elected.  .





Go find your nearest Iranian and ask him about that. Do you not recall what happened a few years ago (while our joke-in-chief did nothing)?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...





Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and start singing really loudly so you don't have to acknowledge the reality unfolding around you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



JRK, you are a little desperate, obviously.  Yes, your defense of Iraq is spurious.  

Let's add that women's rights in the south of Iraq are now not even in the back seat but in the trunk.  It will continue to get worse.

YOu see, you are guilty of what Bush did: say one reason, then give another.  Fail.


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > All things considered, we entered Iraq for all the wrong reasons. It really had nothing to do with WMD's.
> ...



You're Welcome. My guess is you don't agree with my take on why we went into Iraq. I do agree with your assessment of the results. 

Frankly, I think we had to democratize an Arab country if we were going to undermine Al Queda. Our support of Arab dictatorships makes those idiots look like a legitimate insurgency. 

When we created a democracy over there and now currently support democratic movements, we take away AQ's greatest appeal, as the alleged alternative to the ruling dictators. AQ only flourished because these Arab leaders had done such a good job in the last 30 years in driving out prior political moderate and democratic movements. Islamicsm was created by these dictators to give a form of dissent which could be co-opted and appropriated. 
---
I know my views are a little off-kilter from the usual partisan sniping on the subject but it puts things in perspective in a way most won't.


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?



Maybe the people of Iraq should have answered that question?

Are you sure that someone worse won't emerge after we leave?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

You can just as easily say the Arab Spring happened DESPITE IRAQ, or that the newly free muslims are more anti-Israel and anti-western occupation than the old dictators. It was the stupidest war ever and cost us 2-3 trillion for nothing. Add Raygun's covert advenyturist messes in the area and god knows how many lives and treasure were lost. tyvm


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?


How about the fact that his even crazier sons will never rule Iraq?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?
> ...




They couldn't under saddam. Iraqi people I have worked with have told me personal stories about what that meant in practical terms that would turn your hair white.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Iranians were involved in a war against Iraq, so they are not impartial.

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> You can just as easily say the Arab Spring happened DESPITE IRAQ




It is amazing how desperately the left will grasp for any chance to declare defeat.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



If you are so fucking knowledgeable answer the goddamned questions.

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Did your link say no victims?
> 
> The next morning Iraqi bombers appeared out of a clear blue sky. The people of Halabja were used to the successive attacks and counter-attacks of the Iraq-Iran war that had ravaged the region since September 1980. They thought they were in for the usual reprisal raid.e



Iranians were involved in a war against Iraq, so they are not impartial.

.[/QUOTE]


How's that twisting of reality going? Does it fit your agenda yet?


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?
> ...



Not really an argument for keeping Saddam. He had to die sometime, letting his sons take over. 

It was far better that we put all three of them in the ground.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




You got it backwards, shitforbrains. If you are so fucking ignorant STFU until you have some fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Are you really that ignorant?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Did your link say no victims?
> ...




How's that twisting of reality going? Does it fit your agenda yet?[/QUOTE]


Again dumb ass. Our people are telling us that there WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS.

So, who was fucking IMPARTIAL in the region at the time?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Don't ask stupid questions and come up with FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> You can just as easily say the Arab Spring happened DESPITE IRAQ, or that the newly free muslims are more anti-Israel and anti-western occupation than the old dictators. It was the stupidest war ever and cost us 2-3 trillion for nothing. Add Raygun's covert advenyturist messes in the area and god knows how many lives and treasure were lost. tyvm



Except they aren't really anti-Israel and Anti-West. Once arab countries liberalize, they tend to cosy up to both of them. Most of that is the former dictators trying to scapegoat outsiders to cover up their own misrule.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



And why is that?

There are far worse dictators around the world.

Wanna start giving them dirt naps too?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Let me re-state the facts.

The administration ADMITTED that it was using CIA agents as UN inspectors. Links were provided.

Congressional Investigators , led by Mr Pelletier, found no evidence that Kurds have been gassed.

So what are you relying upon for your assertions?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Again dumb ass. Our people are telling us that there WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS.
> 
> .





You find one source that fits your agenda and then ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary? That makes a lot of fucking sense. You are not to be taken seriously.


Defense.gov News Article: Iraq and the Use of Chemical Weapons

I'll spare you the photographic evidence that is easily found with the simplest search.


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Wherever it is feasable, Sure! 

Half of our problems come when we prefer to mollycoddle dictators rather than do the right thing and support democracy abroad.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



Unless you subscribe to the US as world police, it was still the Iraqis place to unseat him.  You act as if no civilians have died under the current scenario.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Yep, you are that ignorant.

Ron Paul?..........I guess we shouldn't be surprised of your ignorance.

After all, he attracts the loons like flies to shit.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> The administration ADMITTED that it was using CIA agents as UN inspectors. Links were provided.
> 
> .




Even were that true it would not change the fact that saddam was in violation of the terms of the end of the first Gulf War in obstructing inspectors. You are grasping for anything to use in apology of a horrible, bloody regime. Your politics are poorly thought out and yet you are still willing to let them lead you into a bed where you fuck the corpse of a brutal dicatator (or maybe the other way around). Really covering yourself in glory there, champ.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> I'll spare you the photographic evidence that is easily found with the simplest search.



A War Crime Or an Act of War?
By *Stephen C. Pelletiere*
Published: January 31, 2003

    Si

It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: ''The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.''

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's ''gassing its own people,'' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
*
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.*

.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Why are we in Europe and Japan now?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Lot's of stupid accusations but no facts. Typical Republican warmonger  fucktard.

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> it was still the Iraqis place to unseat him.  .





You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Sure. 
1) I resent having POTUS, VPOTUS, SecDef lies through their teeth in order to get approval. There was never was any belief by any of them that Saddam had WMDs.
2) I also laugh at those who claim this BS was about the "UN". The same UN who insisted we not go in? Oh yeah, those folks are all ardent supporters of the UN. Yeah okay.
3) I find it ironic and laughable that all the whackjobs who whine about Obama doing things which are "UnConstitutional" act as if this was in accordance - same goes for people who quote Jefferson when it's convenient but are quick to forget his words in regards to us policing or spreading democracy directly.
4) Removing Saddam was not our job. But okay, I'm sure you show the same support for Obama in Libya? No? Didn't think so. You may now claim there's a difference.
5) The puppet government we put in place? That grateful government who told us to get TF out while McCain was campaigning? The one that refused to spend a PENNY of the billions we handed them, while laughing at us as we rebuilt their country at taxpayer expense? The "Stable government" that banned 500 candidates from even being able to run in their last election? The "stable government" that has been found to be the single most corrupt government in the world? The government that will be nothing but the same old theocracy with nothing different within a decade? 
But hey, at least theyshowed their gratitude by giving their first oil contracts to..... our greatest economic rival - China. 
Are you missing something? History lessons maybe. That and say, all the facts that aren't fed to you by the American Right Wing propaganda machine...


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Are you that fucking naive?

.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and when you're calculating the cost of the Iraq war, don't forget,
> ...



The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then;  it was temporarily halted by a ceasefire, then resumed, for no good reason, in 2003.

So, yes the cost of the Iraq war starts in 1991.

That should include btw the cost to us of 9/11, since 9/11 was a consequence of our unnecessary meddling in Middle East affairs that put troops in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Ok, seriously, is this a put-on? Could you really be this stupid, this ignorant of relatively recent history, of current international conditions? It is really starting to look as if you are not worth the time. You need to have at least a baseline of knowledge and understanding to conduct any reasonable discussion. 

In other words, if you cannot answer the above question yourself, you are too fucking ignorant and/or obstinantly driven by agenda to bother with.

What's it gonna be, kid?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That is true from a Constitutional (1787) standpoint.

But the dumb asses  in DC believe that bending backwards for Israel is a good reason.

.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Post WWII policy has been a failure.  We should be out of Europe and Japan, now.
> ...



I am openly saying that there is no vital national interest in the US having troops in Europe and Japan,

any more than there is no European or Japanese vital interest in having troops in the US.

It's nothing more than a make-work project to pay off the defense lobby.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



So you can't answer the question.  I didn't think you could.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then.





You really don't remember the causes of the first Gulf War? Really? How old are you?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




So , YOU can not explain the reason for our involvement but want to make look like the poster is the one who is ignorant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Alright, that's enough for you. Go play with the other kiddies. You have bothered the adults long enough.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Is this Bizarro World? Are you people honestly this fucking stupid?


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



Most of our problems come as a result of installing "friendly" dictators..that go rogue.

My feeling is that we should help popular uprisings if they:

1. Stop a genocide.
2. Are important to our interests.
3. Prevent a worse situation from happening.

Other then that..if a country somehow winds up with a popular dictator..it's really none of our business. Like Belarus or Burma.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You lose, newbie.  Anyone who tries the 'I know the answer but I'm not telling' trick on a forum nowadays is a retard.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then.
> ...



Of course I do. The ARAMCO Oil company persuaded Bush I to reverse its position on the Iraq-Kuwait oil dispute.

.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



He debates like it's 1999.  The old 'I know but I aint sayin'' trick.  lolol


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then.
> ...



April Glaspie greenlighted the Invasion of Kuwait?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then.
> ...



Bush Sr. invaded because of the oil.  Period.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



True.  She let Saddam believe that we weren't interested in an Arab dispute.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> All things considered, we entered Iraq for all the wrong reasons. It really had nothing to do with WMD's.



I think yours is a pretty good analysis.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Exactly.

No constitutional authority and no interests.

.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Correct. 

Actually , she was following Bush I orders.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Nah, your's is still a bit of a generic insult.



As is yours. Your only point is to demean and defame.

But, you are a partisan hack, so what else can be expected of you?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Typical, ignorant fucking conspiracy theorist Paullette, still living in mommy's basement, trolling internet porn while sucking on a bong, and wondering why in the hell you've never had a girlfriend, or gotten laid.

Figure it out, asshole.......You're a loser, that's why.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



There you go. 

You have swallowed your pride and admitted that you are wrong.

Now go forth and sin no more.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Good attempt at distraction,



I'll type slow, so you can follow along....

No distraction sparky, your claim was that "liberals are clever." First off, you wouldn't know a liberal if one kicked you in the twat. The response I gave spoke directly to your statement in pointing out that leftists are in fact, stupid creatures. Your failure to grasp this underscores my point.

As always, you are clever as a sheep.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> You have no proof that one had anything to do with the other.



This is not a court of law, circumstantial evidence suffices.

Remember, you have no proof that Obama is god, yet you won't be disabused of the notion....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
> 
> .




Ohhh, let me guess, it was DA JOOOOOZZZZ, right? They went over, dropped poison gas on the Kurds so that they could harvest their blood for Matzo, and then blamed it all of poor, innocent Saddam...

Am I right?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then;  it was temporarily halted by a ceasefire, then resumed, for no good reason, in 2003.



No good reason, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> I am openly saying that there is no vital national interest in the US having troops in Europe and Japan,



That's nice.

Are you saying the Marshall plan failed?



> It's nothing more than a make-work project to pay off the defense lobby.



Pull US defense from Europe, and those socialist paradises you tout would drop 20% of their GDP overnight.

But I agree with you, end NATO beyond a mutual defense treaty, pull all US Troops out and let Europe defend herself.

In another thread, the lefties were screaming the Putin and Russia pose no threat, so let Europe defend Europe.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
> ...


LMAO!

Tariq Aziz fully admitted they gassed the Kurds.........But don't let that stop the conspiracy loons!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Bush Sr. invaded because of the oil.  Period.



BUSH invaded??



You just make shit up as you go along, doncha?


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yeah, you're missing what should have been #1: We never should have been thereto begin with. Glad I could help you. Have a nice day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Yeah, you're missing what should have been #1: We never should have been thereto begin with.



Yeah, it diverts resources from Libya and Dear Leader's great quest of liberation.....


It's good we have Zombies like you  - indeed....


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Pub foreign policy has been an adventurist, covert, dishonest disaster for 30 years, along with voodoo.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you're missing what should have been #1: We never should have been thereto begin with.
> ...



So, what you're saying is, a war that the previous president started 10 years ago is under criticism from the left because it diverts money from the current rebellion in Libya, which involves no US troops? Good to know we have geniuses like you to put things in perspective.  What a maroon.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> So, what you're saying is, a war that the previous president started 10 years ago is under criticism from the left because it diverts money from the current rebellion in Libya,



No, what I'm doing is highlighting the irony of your reeking hypocrisy.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > So, what you're saying is, a war that the previous president started 10 years ago is under criticism from the left because it diverts money from the current rebellion in Libya,
> ...



How am I being hypocritical? And before you say that I'm against the war in Iraq, therefore it's hypocritical for me to support the Libyan rebellion - They are two different animals; one was a full blown war against a country that posed no threat to the US; the other is a rebellion by the people of Libya, which involved no US troops, and had other NATO nations, particularly France, overseeing the majority of air support missions. So, again, how am I being hypocritical?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> How am I being hypocritical?



Gee, I dunno.....

Unprovoked war in Iraq - BAD

Unprovoked war in Libya - GOOD


It's a conundrum....


----------



## Too Tall (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Satans Empire took a rather advanced middle eastern country and destroyed it for one reason and only one.
> ...



Apparently you have no idea how the WORLD oil market works.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > when he posed no significant threat to the worlds remaining superpower.
> ...



Do you comprehend significant?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> Apparently you have no idea how the WORLD oil market works.



How much is that in barrels?

Oh I know, it flooded the market and drove prices down..

Oh, wait.....


ROFL

You leftists are a crack up - stupid as a fucking doorknob, but funny as hell.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?



After the he took control he never deserved our support even against the Iranians.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2011)

It's funny.

People who claim to be savvy businessmen all of a sudden think the best way to make a profit is to flood the market with your product.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



You're missing at least one important aspect, yes.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan



> The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

editec said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


I hope you haven't given up on those other things you were planning.
At some point this economy is going to scream loudly enough to focus US attention spans the same way 911 did; however, this time the effects will last far longer than one week.
When that happens, we will all discover just how completely the computer has changed human existence.
On balance, I don't get the impression your overall contributions to society are tapped out.
Keep planning. (CBO: the Rosetta Project??)


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



So you're saying there were victims?

The public record shows that Saddam's regime repeatedly spread poisonous gases on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 in an attempt to put down a persistent rebellion. 

The biggest such attack was against Halabja in March 1988. According to local organizations providing relief to the survivors, some 6,800 Kurds were killed, the vast majority of them civilians. 

It is a good thing that Bush has highlighted these atrocities by a regime that is more brutal than most. Yet it is cynical to use them as a justification for American plans to terminate the regime. By any measure, the American record on Halabja is shameful. 

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. 

Halabja - America didn't seem to mind poison gas - NYTimes.com


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*




> Toooooooooooooooooooooooo *easy*.......



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtPBTybQ9k]The Hunt For Bin Laden - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Oh I don't know.  That is the exact rational the Administration used at the time.  So are you calling them ignorant?


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Post WWII policy has been a failure.  We should be out of Europe and Japan, now.
> ...


*So you're saying the Marshall Plan was an act of "unimaginable benevolence?"*

*"WHO PAYS Halliburton and Bechtel?* 

"The U.S. taxpayer. The military system that bombed Iraq destroyed it. Who paid for that? The same taxpayers. *So first you destroy Iraq, then you rebuild it*. It&#8217;s a transfer of wealth from the general population to narrow sectors of the population. 

"Even if you look at the *famous Marshall Plan*, that&#8217;s pretty much what it was. It&#8217;s talked about as an act of '*unimaginable benevolence*.' But whose benevolence? It&#8217;s the benevolence of the American taxpayer. Of the $13 billion of Marshall Plan aid, about $2 billion went right to the U.S. oil companies. 

"That was part of the effort to shift Europe from a *coal-based to an oil-based economy*, and parts of it would be more dependent on the United States. It had plenty of coal. It didn&#8217;t have oil. So there&#8217;s two billion of the 13.

"You look at the rest of it, very little of that money left the United States. It goes from one pocket to another. If you look more closely, the Marshall Plan aid to France just about covered the costs of the French effort to reconquer Indochina. 

"So the U.S. taxpayer wasn&#8217;t rebuilding France. 

"They were paying the French to buy American weapons to crush the Indochinese. 

"Partially the same was true about the Marshall Plan aid to Holland, in the early stage, and what it was doing in Indonesia. *It&#8217;s a complex flow of aid and benefits*." 

Telling the Truth about Imperialism, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

In another interview Chomsky makes the claim the transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to the Marshall Plan nearly equaled Europe's capital flight to New York banks at the end of WWII.

Rich Europeans, some of whom collaborated with Hitler, sent their millions to Wall Street, and US taxpayers funded the "rebuilding of Europe".


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No good reason?  What?  Of course he had a good reason.  I know I know you're probably expecting something with dead babies and incubaters an the suprise attact from the rising next Hitler, but no.

With the Cold War over the military was faced with major cuts.  Now after 20 years, not so much..........had to have an enemy to continue and expand the military.  Well okay, for me that's not a good reason, but for him it was.  He represented the MIC very well.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The war started in 1991, for no good reason we invaded Iraq then.
> ...



Was it because during 1989-1990 Kuwait was overproducing and driving down the price of oil?  Or perhaps their refusal to allow Iraq access to the Persian Gulf?

Perhaps the U.S. government actually sought a pretext for a military intervention in the Middle East and made a secret agreement with the monarch of Kuwait to come to their aid, even though no formal agreement between the two contries existed at the time.....


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > How am I being hypocritical?
> ...



First of all, the REBELLION in Libya was not unprovoked. And we're not at war with Libya. NATO is helping the rebels with air support. Big difference. Second, I never said that I support any unprovoked war. Is there anything else you'd like to pretend that I said? Just let me know and I'll do my best to address the imagined conversation we've had in your head.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 22, 2011)

It is hard to understand the Lefts Double Standard here.

They think it is ok to us US Forces when there is only Humanitarian Reasons and not even a perceived threat to us Security, and have no problem tossing a Dictator out with no plan, or way, to make sure the replacement is not worse. In Libya.

Yet they can find no Humanitarian Reasons for liking Saddam being Removed, They Ignore that Saddam definitely Posed a bigger threat to our Interests, and Do not like that we stayed 8 Years to at least try and assure the Government we left in place was not worse than the one we removed.

We have no idea what we just did in Libya, and before you say it wasn't us it was NATO let me just say.

1. We are NATO, we contribute well over half their Budget, US commanders hold High Positions at every level, and Just because a US plane is flying under a NATO flag does not mean the President can pretend we not involved.

2. we did the Lions share of the Heavy lifting that paved the way for our Allies in the latter stages. In any Military Action like the one in Libya it is the first people in that are at the most risk. We used our Capabilities to take out their Air, and Anti Air Forces. It was our Pilots taking the most Risk, and through the NATO Budget it was and has been mostly US money funding it all.

How can anyone rectify thinking Iraq was a terrible Idea and a failure. Yet now believe Libya was a good idea and a success.

Who in the hell is going to end up in control? Is this going to be like Iran when the Sha Fell? Is the next Islamic Theocracy being Born. Thanks to our help?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



In your fucking dreams


"Since surrendering to American forces on April 24, 2003, Aziz has been held in prison, first by American forces and subsequently by the Iraqi government. He is currently in prison in Camp Cropper in western Baghdad.[3] He was acquitted of some charges on March 1, 2009 following a trial, *but was sentenced to 15 years on March 11, 2009 for the executions of 42 merchants found guilty of profiteering in 1992 and another 7 years for relocating Kurds.

Tariq Aziz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.*


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



So you admit by Killing his own Citizens Gaddafi Provoked a war? Then how can you be against Iraq? Not only did Saddam Kill and Gas his own people, He was actively attempting to shoot down our Planes enforcing a UN MANDATED no fly zone. 

If Libya wasn't an Unprovoked Military Action, then Neither was Iraq.

PERIOD!


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



A LINK to the "public record"

Let me clarify , I don't want a link to some stating what the public record says , I want to VIEW the public record!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 22, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Iraq did all that stuff years..years..before they were invaded.

They were pretty much pacified when Bush decided to knock over that country.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Good luck with that.  Microfiche Sets


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



Pacified? Lol tell that to the Kurds and Shite that Saddam was still oppressing and yes killing even in 2003. Pretty Much pacified? that is funny.

And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.

You guys are hilarious to watch trying to rectify your Support for 1 but not the Other. It's a real treat to watch for sure.


----------



## del (Aug 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



rational thought springs to mind.

there was no reason to go to iraq, not counting GWB's enuresis as a child.

it was and is a tremendous waste of blood and treasure for nothing


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yes I've contemplated that curious 'coincidence' myself.  Berlin Wall falls down, and barely has the dust settled, and Saddam Hussein is wearing a new crown,

King of the new Evil Empire.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

Just have to remind the lib loons and the Paullette, yet again, just who' responsible for lying themself into war.......'cause their revisionist history is friggin' laughable.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 22, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Excuse me, but (1) What W.J. described is exactly as the news was reported. Don't you remember? (2) The UN Inspectors are the "inspectors," and it was well documented Saddam didn't cooperate with them and was cited 54 times officially at the UN for multiple violations of International Law. (3) The chemicals he used on 30 villages of Kurdish Iraqis was known to be a substance more potent than sarin poison. Saddam was like a Hitler on steroids. He murdered conservatively 1.5 million people--.9 million Iranians, half of whom were under 15 years old; the rest were assorted neighbors he declared war on over 25 years, and at least .4 million in his own country. Our men in Iraq were charged with uncovering gruesome mass gravesites in the above-mentioned villages in Iraq, and documented at Centcom years ago. I read all that stuff. Where ya been all yer life, o charming one?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...


It isn't an argument for keeping Sadaam........It was just another reason for jusifying going in there and ending the problem once and for all......'cause Sadaam was batshit crazy, but his sons were even crazier.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...


879 million dollars to this point. And for what?........We have no idea who these rebels are........We have no idea if we just handed the Jihadi's their own country with rich oil prospects to help fund their war against us.

Good job Obama!.......Dumbass.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Maybe Fox/Rush/Pub bots don't know, but we others do...Sorry freedom is messy.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Right, they're all AlQaeda, and the USA slaughtered women and children. Turn off the BS.


----------



## Rozman (Aug 22, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Pretty strong statement considering a bunch of Dems like Sen.Hillary Clinton and Sen.John Kerry voted for it...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Right, they're all AlQaeda, and the USA slaughtered women and children. Turn off the BS.


You don't even have a clue as to the make-up of the Lybian population.

Much like Afghanistan, it's completely made up of tribes..........There is a very real chance we will be going in there, boots on the ground in the future.

It wasn't our fight. We had no business sticking our noses and resources into it.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Yes I do, and I can spell Libyan. You said we were massacring their women and children months after we stopped boming even, so I highly doubt your insight.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Yes I do, and I can spell Libyan. You said we were massacring their women and children months after we stopped boming even, so I highly doubt your insight.


We were launching predator attacks well after the WPR expired.....Civilians were killed....We've already been through it, hippy.

It wasn't our fight. We had no business getting involved.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Just have to remind the lib loons and the Paullette, yet again, just who' responsible for lying themself into war.......'cause their revisionist history is friggin' laughable.
> 
> Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News



The article you linked is an interview with one of Saddam's interrogators, in which the interrogator confesses that Saddam made it seem to the world that he possessed weapons of mass destruction because he wanted to deter other nations, particularly Iran, from planning an attack on Iraq. Saddam admits that he had no WMDs - Bush's reasoning behind the invasionof Iraq- and you think that vindicates Bush?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> hellofromwarsaw said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do, and I can spell Libyan. You said we were massacring their women and children months after we stopped boming even, so I highly doubt your insight.
> ...



   Absolute BS as ALWAYS! link?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Just have to remind the lib loons and the Paullette, yet again, just who' responsible for lying themself into war.......'cause their revisionist history is friggin' laughable.
> ...


Yeah, dumbass..........He also stated he never came clean because he under estimated Bush's intentions. Never thought the US would invade, and if we did, it would be a pussy ass Clinton style bombing......Bush gave him several chances to come clean....Saddam made his own fateful decisions......He, and he only lied himself into war.

But you keep pushing your revisionist history. We'll continue to deal in facts.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > hellofromwarsaw said:
> ...


You were already provided the links two weeks ago.....You were fully made a fool of.....Once I skewer someone on a subject, I don't waste my time on a second round.

It wasn't our fight. We had no business spending almost a billion, TO THIS POINT, supporting people of whom we have no idea who the hell they are.

BTW, now we are finding out that the rebels lied about capturing Qadaffi's son....He's alive and well in Tripoli, as we saw when he just spoke to a FOX news producer.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 22, 2011)

Sure. 
1) I resent having POTUS, VPOTUS, SecDef lies through their teeth in order to get approval. There was never was any belief by any of them that Saddam had WMDs.
2) I also laugh at those who claim this BS was about the "UN". The same UN who insisted we not go in? Oh yeah, those folks are all ardent supporters of the UN. Yeah okay.
3) I find it ironic and laughable that all the whackjobs who whine about Obama doing things which are "UnConstitutional" act as if this was in accordance - same goes for people who quote Jefferson when it's convenient but are quick to forget his words in regards to us policing or spreading democracy directly.
4) Removing Saddam was not our job. But okay, I'm sure you show the same support for Obama in Libya? No? Didn't think so. You may now claim there's a difference.
5) The puppet government we put in place? That grateful government who told us to get TF out while McCain was campaigning? The one that refused to spend a PENNY of the billions we handed them, while laughing at us as we rebuilt their country at taxpayer expense? The "Stable government" that banned 500 candidates from even being able to run in their last election? The "stable government" that has been found to be the single most corrupt government in the world? The government that will be nothing but the same old theocracy with nothing different within a decade? 
But hey, at least theyshowed their gratitude by giving their first oil contracts to..... our greatest economic rival - China. 
Are you missing something? History lessons maybe. That and say, all the facts that aren't fed to you by the American Right Wing propaganda machine...


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 22, 2011)

George H.W. Bush suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait:

April Glaspie/Saddam Hussein Transcript: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

George W. Bush manufactures false evidence to invade Iraq a second time.  No wonder Iraqis hate the Bushes.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Stupidest war EVER!! Fer crying out loud. Half a million KILLED for nuthin'...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 22, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Sure.
> 1) I resent having POTUS, VPOTUS, SecDef lies through their teeth in order to get approval. There was never was any belief by any of them that Saddam had WMDs.
> 2) I also laugh at those who claim this BS was about the "UN". The same UN who insisted we not go in? Oh yeah, those folks are all ardent supporters of the UN. Yeah okay.
> 3) I find it ironic and laughable that all the whackjobs who whine about Obama doing things which are "UnConstitutional" act as if this was in accordance - same goes for people who quote Jefferson when it's convenient but are quick to forget his words in regards to us policing or spreading democracy directly.
> ...


 Cry us a fuckin' river. 

Only one man lied himself into war....That was Sadaam himself.....Deal with it, or continue your whining....Nobody cares.

879 million, THUS FAR, to go into Libya....And for what?.......To support people that we don't even know who the fuck they are.......Brilliant move, Obama!.....Fuckin' dumbass.


----------



## dblack (Aug 22, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Stupidest war EVER!! Fer crying out loud. Half a million KILLED for nuthin'...



and we're still fucking around with it.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> hellofromwarsaw said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



You gave a link to a April 22 USA bombing mission (no civilian casualties, before WPA limits), a USA predator used for reconnaissance, and  NATO predator missions, A COUNTRY MILE from a "massacre of Libyian women and children". You are FOS. 
  We've spent the cost of 2 high schools in Cal. and lost NO personnel to get a REAL terrorist, and you think it's equal to Iraq. STFU loudmouth dupe. TYVM


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 22, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war. You actually believe that because Saddam lied about having WMDs, Bush deserves no criticism over this God forsaken war in Iraq that cost thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 23, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > hellofromwarsaw said:
> ...


No Hippy, it was June 22nd, fool.

But I understand, most lib's have selective memory these days......Unfortunately for you loons, the voters will not, come November of next year.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 23, 2011)

Liar


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.
> ...



I'm not sure what you percieve as "whining". Just stating facts and opinions. 
Like being lied to by the CIC & Co. That's long been proven. 
The UN objected to the iraq invasion. Do you deny this?
You kind of prove my third & fourth points for me. My thanks.
Whereas we (well, those of us who don't drink the kool-aid, that is) _know_ "who the fuck" the people in the Iraq government are. Which is the problem.
Obviously, well-thought points, reason and and intellectual debate are not exactly your strengths (which might explain your defense of Bush & the Iraq war) but you might give it a try.

You may now continue your tantrum...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 23, 2011)

Do *Republicans EVER* do their *own* work*???????*







> "What does Bushs preemption policy have to do with Libya? Does Hannity think Libya was a threat? Was he likening NATOs actions in Libya to the invasion of Iraq?"
> 
> *Tap-Dancin' With Hannity*​


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Yeah.
> 
> It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.






It was obviously neither.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war.





Liberals love their talking points so much they just can't let them go no matter how long after the fact. The whole "lies!" BS is a failed bit of partisan propoganda that is by now like an old piece of chewing gum.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Stupidest war EVER!! Fer crying out loud. ...




Ask Qaddafi about that.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Sure.
> 1) I resent having POTUS, VPOTUS, SecDef lies through their teeth in order to get approval. There was never was any belief by any of them that Saddam had WMDs.
> ...





Now, do you gain mind-reading powers when you become an extreme lefty or do you have to have them already to be accepted as an extreme lefty?


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

I see the crime crew has came out
Th only crime committed was Saddam against humanity

The only people who lied in this event was Saddam his self. He brought this wrath upon his people as well as th countries who went in there to fix that mess. No-one else


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war.
> ...



No lies?  So when Colin Powell went to the UN with fake pictures of WMD's that didn't exist,

what part of 'lying' doesn't apply to that?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 23, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



So it was worth throwing away 4000 American lives and maiming thousands of others because Saddam Hussein was shooting at our planes and missing??

That some ghoulish shit there.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



You and every other screeching, hysterical liberal cannot prove any "lie." You just like that word becuase it is dramatic and you drama queens get off on that sort of thing.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Your ignorance and short-sightedness is depressing.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> I see the crime crew has came out
> Th only crime committed was Saddam against humanity
> 
> The only people who lied in this event was Saddam his self. He brought this wrath upon his people as well as th countries who went in there to fix that mess. No-one else


Is you capable of seeing War is a Racket.

Do your ideology blind you to the fact that the only thing differentiating psychopaths like Saddam and Dick Cheney, or Bill Clinton or Obama is an accident of birth?

Your professed love for our troops and the crocodile tears you shed over their suffering would be far more convincing if you condemned those who get rich from the war racket.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Aug 23, 2011)

Strange - I was wondering why anyone would claim the Iraqi war was a success?  As Bill Maher says, _the next time we go to war over oil, let's make sure we get some._


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



LINK, puhleeese.



> And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.



Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly  zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


*Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991)*, 


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


*While you rich-bitch cons can't spell Judith Miller.*

"IE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati."

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | | AlterNet


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The question was, what part of 'lying' doesn't apply to that appearance by Powell?  Since you obviously can't refute that with substance,

since Powell, as the representative of the administration, claimed that non-existent WMD's did in fact exist,

and provided pictures that could not possible be real, since you can't take a real picture of something that doesn't exist,

that is lying.  Period.

The entire case for WMD's as the justification for the invasion was manufactured.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 23, 2011)

The screeching so-called "conservatives" here are nothing of the sort.  They are supporters of failed former lefties who argue for the projection of American military power overseas for American policy goals.  I find it interesting to see a neo-con like Ukotare in philosophical alignment with Obama, who is winding down Iraq this year, will wind down much of Afghanistan by summer of next year, and has been demonstrating that certain neo-con behaviors in an internatiionalist cooperative can bring change to places like Libya.

JRK and Ukotare are not different at all from the liberals they screech at.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




All of it. You cannot prove that faulty intelligence (agreed upon by most of the world) equates to a "lie." You liberals keep screaming "lie" because you are drama Queens but you cannot prove any lie. Is that clear enough for you, junior?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama, who will wind down much of Afghanistan by summer of next year.




Which is likely to prove a monumental mistake.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> It's funny.
> 
> People who claim to be savvy businessmen all of a sudden think the best way to make a profit is to flood the market with your product.



So it was all a conspiracy to REDUCE the flow of oil? We invaded for oil, but not to get oil, to reduce the flow of oil?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *So you're saying the Marshall Plan was an act of "unimaginable benevolence?"*



I am?

Where exactly did I say that?

You just make shit up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

JosefK said:


> First of all, the REBELLION in Libya was not unprovoked.



So you're saying that whole Iraq thing sparked popular uprisings in the middle east?



> And we're not at war with Libya.



Of course not, it's a sock-hop, with bombs....



> Second, I never said that I support any unprovoked war.



False, you have repeatedly supported Obama over Libya.

We get it, you're a mindless sycophant. You support Obama, no matter what he does. Obama putting us in yet another war doesn't bother you, you worship Obama and what he does is perfect, by merit that he did it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Obama, who will wind down much of Afghanistan by summer of next year.
> ...



...............that we didn't get out of 9.5 years ago.


Don't worry I'm sure it'll be an Iraq style "troop pull out", in other words meaning we're leaving tens of thousands of soldiers there for an indefinite period of time in our new bases that will also be there for an indefinite period of time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> If Libya wasn't an Unprovoked Military Action, then Neither was Iraq.



But they're DIFFFFFFFFFRANT.... Iraq was based on lies by the evil one who went to war all by hissef an an all the party members told him not to but he did illegal war..

Libya is an act of god, the lord god Obama sent his angels to guide the events there. The bombs dropped turn into HOPE and CHANGE, spreading the word of Obama to all!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Iraq did all that stuff years..years..before they were invaded.



Yep, by the time the EVIL BOOOOOOOSSSHHH launched his unauthorized and illegal war with no knowledge of party members, Saddam had accepted Obama as his personal lord and savior and was serving tea and crumpets to the Kurds...


ROFL

You fucking Obamabots are quite up on rewriting history to meet the needs of your cult of personality.  Well, when you have ZERO integrity, as you do - it ain't a big deal to simply fabricate the recent past.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

del said:


> rational thought springs to mind.



Not to yours - not ever.


----------



## del (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > rational thought springs to mind.
> ...



you're not equipped to make that call, droolboi.

run along


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



*Your reality is not necessarily reality.*


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone really want to make an argument that Saddam deserved to continue to rule Iraq?
> ...



*How was this America's responsibility?  *


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Stupidest war EVER!! Fer crying out loud. Half a million KILLED for nuthin'...



Then why hasn't your messiah pulled us out? Nearly three years, and he's still there....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



The country was stable before we removed Saddam shit for brains.

At best its a pyrrhic victory


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



The very minute we allowed him to get away with the 93 event as well as the very second 9-11 took place
"Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings" (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Military retaliation from Baghdad was the main administration concern following Saturday's strike on Iraq. Yet U.S. officials should start thinking seriously about the question of retaliation through terror. It is quite possible, for example, that there was a connection between Saddam and recent attempts to blow up Manhattan. It is quite possible that New York's terror is Saddam's revenge.

Speculation about the responsibility for last week's bombing plot and the earlier World Trade Center bombing has focused on Iran, Sudan, and the fundamentalist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Much energy has been spent linking the terror to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet Saddam, a secular tyrant, is also suspect.

Information already in the public domain allows us to make this case. Start with the fact that the most important person in the Trade Center bombing is an Iraqi, Ramzi Ahmad Yusuf. Known in New York as Rashid, Mr. Yusuf has 11 aliases. The U.S. press has reported that he left Iraq in early 1992, transiting Jordan to Pakistan. He entered New York in early September on Pakistan Airways. Mr. Yusuf, traveling on his Iraqi passport, passed through immigration by requesting asylum. The FBI claims the plot began in August, while Mr. Yusuf was abroad.

Ordering Chemicals
Mr. Yusuf soon became the roomate of Mohammed Salameh, the naive Palestinian who repeatedly returned to the van rental agency for his deposit. Passionate, but not bright, Mr. Salameh would appear a ready dupe to an intelligence operative. In trial documents, an Iraqi-American, Musaab Yassin, has stated that he had known Mr. Salameh two years. Mr. Yassin moved into Mr. Salameh's apartment in September 1992, and Mr. Salameh moved out. Mr. Yassin's younger brother, Abboud, lived with him. An Arab who knows Musaab Yassin, like Mr. Yusuf, came to the U.S. in the fall of 1992, seeking medical treatment.

In late November, Mr. Yusuf allegedly ordered chemicals  for the bomb and Mr. Salameh rented a locker to store them. The plot was underway. In early February, Mr. Salameh notified his landlord that he and Mr. Yusuf would leave at month's end. On Feb. 26 the World Trade Center was bombed. Messrs. Salameh and Yusuf vacated their apartment two days later.

Mr. Salameh was arrested March 4. Musaab Yassin returned home that day to find the FBI searching his apartment, while Abboud had been taken for questioning. Abboud Yassin told the FBI that he taught Mr. Salameh to drive the van that carried the bomb, that he accompanied Mr. Salameh to an apartment later identified as the bomb's testing ground; and Abboud Yassin's information helped lead the FBI to the locker where the chemicals had been stored. The U.S. press reports that Abboud Yassin then returned to Iraq, as did Mr. Yusuf. The New York Times reported that Arabs who knew Mr. Salameh and the second Palestinian arrested, Nidal Ayyad, said that the two had "close ties with two Iraqis, one of whom they say was named Rashid, but both of whom have since disappeared."

This information, although sketchy, indicates Iraqi activity. If Mr. Yusuf, the key figure, had worked for Iran, Tehran would not have let him return to Iraq. Given the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime, even Abboud Yassin's return to Iraq is significant. An innocent man would, arguably, have chosen to stay in the U.S. - he would have a better chance of a fair hearing in a U.S. court than before an Iraqi intelligence officer. If Abboud Yassin was involved in the bombing - but was not acting under Baghdad's instruction - then it was even more imprudent for him to return to Iraq. Mr. Yusuf and Abboud Yassin could have gone to Afghanistan, where they would not have exposed themselves to the potentially fatal suspicions of Baghdad's intelligence agencies.

That two men involved came from Iraq and returned there is reason enough to consider an Iraqi role in the World Trade Center bombing. What other possible evidence is there? It has been reported that the bombing suspects received money from abroad: up to $100,000 from Germany, Iran, and "another Middle Eastern Country." That country is probably Jordan, shielded by U.S. authorities who continue protecting Amman for the sake of the "peace process." Without knowing how much money came from each country, though, it is hard to exclude Iraq. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the February bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Kuwait's liberation.

What about last week's arrests? The FBI arrested five Sudanese and three others as it broke up a second bombing plot. The conspirators' first target was the United Nations' headquarters. Other targets were added, including FBI headquarters in New York. Additionally, four assassinations were planned, including that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Like the Trade Center bombing, much of this operation was amateurish. The conspiracy instigator, Siddiq Ibrahim Ali, had a plan to get a car into the FBI building, but it was amateurish (he proposed shooting the guards). Professional terrorists divide their organizations into small cells, each devoted to specific tasks. These planners used a large group in which every participant was known to the others, so that the entire plot could quickly unravel once one member was caught. Yet, like the World Trade Center bombing, this was audacious. Had it suceeded, thousands could have died.

It's important to note that both the Trade Center bombing and the later plot represent something new - at least in the West. Saddam, however, commits that kind of carnage on a daily basis. Two of the nations thought to be behind the second plot are not ideal suspects. Khartoum is suspected, because Sudanese played a big role in the plot. With Iran, Sudanese has been involved in a violent campaign to overthrow secular governments in North Africa, including Mr. Boutros-Ghali's own government in Cairo. But Khartoum has not sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets. That it should suddenly support potentially the most devastating anti-American attack ever makes little sense. A separate question though is whether Sudanese diplomats could be bought. This is possible, since Khartoum is broke, and months behind in paying its diplomats. Iranian sponsorship of the plot is also unlikely. Iran has no big quarrel with the U.N. - it benefits from the U.N.'s disarmament of Iraq. The U.N. is not the obvious target for Muslim extremists. Their quarrel is with the U.S. They could have easily chosen an American target. Explaining why fundamentalists would bomb the U.N. is possible, but the explanation is strained - that they see the U.N. as a U.S. surrogate; that their violence is caused by anger at many issues involving the U.N., including Bosnia, Somalia and the Palestinians. The Trade Center suspects issued a set of demands that the U.S. stop aiding Israel and stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Saddam by contrast has every reason to attack the U.N. Saddam also hates Egypt's Mubarak and wants him dead, no less than he wanted George Bush dead. Baghdad Radio threatened Mr. Bush personally during the Gulf War and Mubarak as well, "Does he (Mubarak) think that the crime he committed against the people of Iraq will go unpunished?... Prepare yourself for it and shiver at the thought."

More To Come


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




No. Make an appointment with your optometrist.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 23, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




But by some coincidence it turns out that it is.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny.
> ...


Maybe we invaded Iraq to INCREASE the price of oil from $30 a barrel in March 2003 to a peak of nearly $80/barrel in July 2006?

Just another wealth transfer from the general population to rich parasites.


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Is this why gas was well below 2.00 a gallon in 2008?
and is close to 4 in 2011?
transfer of wealth?
We cannot get oil in this country like we could
thats transfer of wealth Is Obama's fault, no-one elses


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 23, 2011)

Sallow said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Except given enough time, it always becomes our problem. They all "go rogue" or become liabilities to our credibility and prestige soon enough. 

Friendly dictators just mean we are putting off the inevitable. There is really no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Peacetime kills them from the inside. Without some kind of outside conflict to keep its internal repression/military forces occupied, they start looting the system or grabbing power for themselves. 

I think we should support the ouster of dictatorships where it is most feasible with our resources. Some require more effort than others. Above all, the US should really stand behind the democratization of the world. Ultimately it is a worthy goal of a superpower and pays off dividends. A more democratic world is ultimately a less violent one. Tacit acceptance of dictatorship is just being lazy or taking the most expedient action. It seldom works well for us.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 23, 2011)

How interesting to see failed liberal neo-cons like Ukotare and Uncensored lined up with Obama on this issue.  BHO killed Osama, wound down Iraq, is winding down Afghanistan, and directed quietly the coalition that has knocked out the Khadaffis from power in Libya.  Bet these neo-cons are going to vote for him next year.


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

CryingKoala said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



Saddam had over 10 years to do the right thing
He was told to rid his country of WMDs long before the 500 munitions were found in 04 that people say were "no good"
There were not in that shape in the 90s when he told the world he had none left. there is also evidence many of those munitions were moved
After 9-11 Saddam had 2 choices
He chose the later
his own people hung him for it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 23, 2011)

And they will hang us later on when they are allied with Iran.

JRK, there is no way you can make this work well for your side.

We should not have gone, we went, and the world has been messed seriously since.  Obama has would down Iraq, killed Osama, is winding down Afghanistan, and is going to win in Libya.

You are voting for him, right?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> CryingKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




First, here are the spin-free conclusions of the Duelfer report with regrd to weapons of mass destruction: 

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991, following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." 

*** 

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." 

*** 

"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent." 

*** 

"...ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes... [T]here appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level [from the mid-1990s forward]." 

*** 

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam." 


Unfortunately, beyond that, the spinning starts. 

The Iraq Papers #10: The Iraq Survey Group & Its Conclusions


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> How interesting to see failed liberal neo-cons like Ukotare and Uncensored lined up with Obama on this issue.  BHO killed Osama, wound down Iraq, is winding down Afghanistan, and directed quietly the coalition that has knocked out the Khadaffis from power in Libya.  Bet these neo-cons are going to vote for him next year.



I would take that over Ron Paul isolationism any day!

There is nothing logical about retreating from interests beyond our borders. 

What is interesting is the GOP flip/flop now that Libya is becoming a success
The GOP candidates on the fall of Qaddafi | FP Passport

Rommey
""The world is about to be rid of Muammar al-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done," "

Huntsman
""The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful - as the whole world should be - that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it." "

Rick Perry stated today's events are cause for cautious celebration: 
"The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries." 
Of the top GOP contenders, the most stridently anti-intervention have been Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, neither has made statements yet today. The latest developments won't change much for Paul or his supporters, who oppose humanitarian intervention on principle and would have still been against this war if it had toppled Qaddafi in a matter of hours and cost $20.

Things are a little more complicated for Bachmann, who has suggested that there are "elements of al Qaeda in North Africa and Hezbollah in the opposition forces" and has accused the administration of "creating a toehold for al Qaeda in North Africa to take over Libya." Will she stick to that characterization now that the rebels are in power?

As for Newt Gingrich, who was for intervening before he was against it, we haven't anything from Maui quite yet.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



*Pure paranoia and not factual. If so, this would have been our reason for going into Iraq.*


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



*To you it is, and that is not coincidence.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> To you it is, and that is not coincidence.



Have you ever considered that if you were to use less drugs, you might experience a reality more similar to that which other people experience?


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > To you it is, and that is not coincidence.
> ...



*Have you ever considered knowing some facts before you speak?*


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > CryingKoala said:
> ...



Really?
So Saddam had nothing to do with the first trade center bombing
Military retaliation from Baghdad was the main administration concern following Saturday's strike on Iraq. Yet U.S. officials should start thinking seriously about the question of retaliation through terror. It is quite possible, for example, that there was a connection between Saddam and recent attempts to blow up Manhattan. It is quite possible that New York's terror is Saddam's revenge.

Speculation about the responsibility for last week's bombing plot and the earlier World Trade Center bombing has focused on Iran, Sudan, and the fundamentalist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Much energy has been spent linking the terror to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet Saddam, a secular tyrant, is also suspect.

Information already in the public domain allows us to make this case. Start with the fact that the most important person in the Trade Center bombing is an Iraqi, Ramzi Ahmad Yusuf. Known in New York as Rashid, Mr. Yusuf has 11 aliases. The U.S. press has reported that he left Iraq in early 1992, transiting Jordan to Pakistan. He entered New York in early September on Pakistan Airways. Mr. Yusuf, traveling on his Iraqi passport, passed through immigration by requesting asylum. The FBI claims the plot began in August, while Mr. Yusuf was abroad.

Ordering Chemicals
Mr. Yusuf soon became the roomate of Mohammed Salameh, the naive Palestinian who repeatedly returned to the van rental agency for his deposit. Passionate, but not bright, Mr. Salameh would appear a ready dupe to an intelligence operative. In trial documents, an Iraqi-American, Musaab Yassin, has stated that he had known Mr. Salameh two years. Mr. Yassin moved into Mr. Salameh's apartment in September 1992, and Mr. Salameh moved out. Mr. Yassin's younger brother, Abboud, lived with him. An Arab who knows Musaab Yassin, like Mr. Yusuf, came to the U.S. in the fall of 1992, seeking medical treatment.

In late November, Mr. Yusuf allegedly ordered chemicals  for the bomb and Mr. Salameh rented a locker to store them. The plot was underway. In early February, Mr. Salameh notified his landlord that he and Mr. Yusuf would leave at month's end. On Feb. 26 the World Trade Center was bombed. Messrs. Salameh and Yusuf vacated their apartment two days later.

Mr. Salameh was arrested March 4. Musaab Yassin returned home that day to find the FBI searching his apartment, while Abboud had been taken for questioning. Abboud Yassin told the FBI that he taught Mr. Salameh to drive the van that carried the bomb, that he accompanied Mr. Salameh to an apartment later identified as the bomb's testing ground; and Abboud Yassin's information helped lead the FBI to the locker where the chemicals had been stored. The U.S. press reports that Abboud Yassin then returned to Iraq, as did Mr. Yusuf. The New York Times reported that Arabs who knew Mr. Salameh and the second Palestinian arrested, Nidal Ayyad, said that the two had "close ties with two Iraqis, one of whom they say was named Rashid, but both of whom have since disappeared."

This information, although sketchy, indicates Iraqi activity. If Mr. Yusuf, the key figure, had worked for Iran, Tehran would not have let him return to Iraq. Given the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime, even Abboud Yassin's return to Iraq is significant. An innocent man would, arguably, have chosen to stay in the U.S. - he would have a better chance of a fair hearing in a U.S. court than before an Iraqi intelligence officer. If Abboud Yassin was involved in the bombing - but was not acting under Baghdad's instruction - then it was even more imprudent for him to return to Iraq. Mr. Yusuf and Abboud Yassin could have gone to Afghanistan, where they would not have exposed themselves to the potentially fatal suspicions of Baghdad's intelligence agencies.

That two men involved came from Iraq and returned there is reason enough to consider an Iraqi role in the World Trade Center bombing. What other possible evidence is there? It has been reported that the bombing suspects received money from abroad: up to $100,000 from Germany, Iran, and "another Middle Eastern Country." That country is probably Jordan, shielded by U.S. authorities who continue protecting Amman for the sake of the "peace process." Without knowing how much money came from each country, though, it is hard to exclude Iraq. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the February bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Kuwait's liberation.

What about last week's arrests? The FBI arrested five Sudanese and three others as it broke up a second bombing plot. The conspirators' first target was the United Nations' headquarters. Other targets were added, including FBI headquarters in New York. Additionally, four assassinations were planned, including that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Like the Trade Center bombing, much of this operation was amateurish. The conspiracy instigator, Siddiq Ibrahim Ali, had a plan to get a car into the FBI building, but it was amateurish (he proposed shooting the guards). Professional terrorists divide their organizations into small cells, each devoted to specific tasks. These planners used a large group in which every participant was known to the others, so that the entire plot could quickly unravel once one member was caught. Yet, like the World Trade Center bombing, this was audacious. Had it suceeded, thousands could have died.

It's important to note that both the Trade Center bombing and the later plot represent something new - at least in the West. Saddam, however, commits that kind of carnage on a daily basis. Two of the nations thought to be behind the second plot are not ideal suspects. Khartoum is suspected, because Sudanese played a big role in the plot. With Iran, Sudanese has been involved in a violent campaign to overthrow secular governments in North Africa, including Mr. Boutros-Ghali's own government in Cairo. But Khartoum has not sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets. That it should suddenly support potentially the most devastating anti-American attack ever makes little sense. A separate question though is whether Sudanese diplomats could be bought. This is possible, since Khartoum is broke, and months behind in paying its diplomats. Iranian sponsorship of the plot is also unlikely. Iran has no big quarrel with the U.N. - it benefits from the U.N.'s disarmament of Iraq. The U.N. is not the obvious target for Muslim extremists. Their quarrel is with the U.S. They could have easily chosen an American target. Explaining why fundamentalists would bomb the U.N. is possible, but the explanation is strained - that they see the U.N. as a U.S. surrogate; that their violence is caused by anger at many issues involving the U.N., including Bosnia, Somalia and the Palestinians. The Trade Center suspects issued a set of demands that the U.S. stop aiding Israel and stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Saddam by contrast has every reason to attack the U.N. Saddam also hates Egypt's Mubarak and wants him dead, no less than he wanted George Bush dead. Baghdad Radio threatened Mr. Bush personally during the Gulf War and Mubarak as well, "Does he (Mubarak) think that the crime he committed against the people of Iraq will go unpunished?... Prepare yourself for it and shiver at the thought."

More To Come

So Saddam did not kick out the UN inspectors, never?

And the 500 munitions that were found were ok to have kept and that at no time did the UN mean for those to be destroyed, they were iin the "shape" they were found to be in sense they day they were assembled

And a late addition to this report
 After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home  buried in the front yard  awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed. He said, "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end." In his book, "The Bomb in My Garden", the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program

theres more
On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." *Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas"*, Kay would say in a later interview.[102] In other cases, Iraq had simply lied to the UN in its weapons programs.[103] The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had at this point cost $300 million and was projected to cost around $600 million more.


ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100 km to 150180 km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF  one was shot down and one hit Kuwait."
Another notable statement is the following:
"*We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."*

om, an imminent threat is a political judgment. Its not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
I*n June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.[*
On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "C*oalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."* However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[116]

all of these where UN sanction busts
the very reason Saddam had to go
Like everything it depends on who tells the story as to the outcome
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
saddam moved WMDs from iraq - Bing Videos
Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *Have you ever considered knowing some facts before you speak?*


*

Have you ever considered the Betty Ford clinic?*


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *Have you ever considered knowing some facts before you speak?*
> ...


*

I will take that as a 'no'.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *I will take that as a 'no'.*



As will I.

Do you remember the old commercials? "If you don't get help and Charter, just fucking end it all!"

LOL

In all seriousness, I only mock you because you're stupid.


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 23, 2011)

Has anyone ever realized that the reasons we went to Iraq were not seen as important once we actually went there. It was the fundamental flaw of the anti-war movement. The whole "Bush lied" thing stopped being relevant after 2003. It didn't help anyone figure out what to do next.  

The WMD's argument is pretty flimsy. At most, Saddam made use of 9/11 to give a big middle finger to the US, but not much else. But Saddam was the easiest target if we wanted to democratize an Arab nation by force. Bush wanted a huge US military presence in the region not beholden to a native government to be the giant gorilla in the room to prompt some form of democratization in the Middle East out of our putative allies. 

It was heavy handed as hell, but GWB understood the nature of Islamicism and its roots with these "stable dictators". Al Queda's Islamicist rhetoric didn't start with Osama.  It started with the Saudi government. Osama just appropriated it for himself.


----------



## shintao (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1.Torture, murder, rape of innocent chained & detained women & children.
2.Thousands slaughtered, mained and radiated with nuclear poison.
3.Infrastructure destroyed and a country laid in waste.
4.US troops slaughtered & maimed, psych cases, ongoing medical care & benefits for a lifetime.
5.Gasoline prices are higher & trillions unpaid and left for our children.

Simply put, you don't win wars and you can never call them a success.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Really? So Saddam had nothing to do with the first trade center bombing



Evidence please

Evidence are FACTS - 

not speculation, allegations, dreams , propaganda, conjectures, hallucinations, etc.


.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 23, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........Do you not remember Stormin' Norman telling them exactly what they would agree too, or else?

It was carried live. You surely couldn't have missed it.

Christ, do you people ever research anything, or know what the fuck you're talking about?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



BS.  The no fly zones were instituted by France the UK and the US after the war ended in addition the UN Sanctions after the Kurdish revolt was brutally suppressed by Saddam.  France eventually dropped out in 98.

BTW they didn't stop voilence on the ground from Saddams forces in either the north or the south.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *I will take that as a 'no'.*
> ...



*And if what you thought meant anything, I might just care. 

Sorry, I do not watch television and have no reference as to what you were asking.*


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Excuse me slick

But I am still trying to find out why the fuck Iraq was invaded.....why was it required that they surrender their sovereignty to War Criminal Bush?


.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 23, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war.
> ...



Prove it. Prove that Bush administration officials did not give false information as their reasoning for the invasion. Go ahead and try it. You can't.


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

shintao said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



1) what are you babbling about?
2) what are you babbling about?
3) this happens in war. there infrastructure is coming around
4) US troops have had there losses, this does occur in war, and with respect they all volunteered for it, that is something you would know nothing about and to be honest all but a few are not seeking your help with this matter, TRY AND SHOW SOME RESPECT
5) That would be an issue you need to take up with our president. 2009 Jan it was around 1.70 a gallon


----------



## JRK (Aug 23, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



we invaded Iraq because it was the will of the people to invade Iraq
we invade Iraq because congress agreed we needed to invade Iraq
Now you an call GWB a criminal if you like
but its alie and most people in this country agree and agreed with him and the reasons we went


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 23, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Evidence please
> 
> Evidence are FACTS -
> 
> not speculation, allegations, dreams , propaganda, conjectures, hallucinations, etc.



Are you connected with Elohim City?

If so, one of your comrades, Terry Nichols, is positively connected to the Blind Sheik and the first WTC attack.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



The only thing that was done was killing saddam. And arent you the doofus from the other thread that said we were there for weapons of mass destruction? Something that wasn't there? And what republic? it's a series of splinter groups now.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 23, 2011)

oracle said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...


You're not exactly the brightest light on the  ol' Xmas tree o' life, eh?

Yeah, we know.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
> ...



First, you're a dumbass. How in the fuck was the war on saddam? Also dipshit I was there in 91 so I know based on your stupid comment, that you have absolutely NO idea why we were there. And finally Georgie wasn't? That jackass said jesus talked to him and led him into Iraq.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



We were not empowered by the UN to conduct war against Saddam, Jester.  That is a flat fact of internation law.  Why do you think Bush and his buddies don't travel overseas since Rumsfeld fled Europe in advance of a war crimes warrant and arrest?  They can't travel, Jester, because in the rest of the civilized war they are generally considered as war criminals.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



Here's what that asshat can do, go to lawrence o'donnel's website and fin the condi rice interview...then come back with the bush lies. She admitted to them then tried to justify them.


----------



## dblack (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> we invaded Iraq because it was the will of the people to invade Iraq
> we invade Iraq because congress agreed we needed to invade Iraq
> Now you an call GWB a criminal if you like
> but its alie and most people in this country agree and agreed with him and the reasons we went



Absolute, utter bullshit. The will of the people was to strike back at those responsible for 9/11. There was virtually no popular support for attacking Iraq until the Bush administration "suggested" that we should.


----------



## oracle (Aug 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Don't forget, the U.N. wanted more time to investigate, but bush said we couldn't wait until there was a mushroom cloud over America before we act, so he grabbed blair and went in...eyes wide shut.


----------



## initforme (Aug 23, 2011)

We got rid of saddam.    Right there it was time to come home.  Instead we are rebuilding the country.   WHen/If we leave if the people over there wont fight to keep their country then are we supposed to help them again?    While our infrastructure needs work we are rebuilding a country we damaged.   Talk about insanity.   Maybe its time to hold the defense budget to a halt just like the rest of the cuts that are going to be made.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


I don't give a flying fuck about the UN.........We had just been attacked. One of our enemies was rattling his sword. He was given many opportunities to come clean about everything, he refused, we took his sorry ass out along with his regime, and rightfully so.
No war crime whatsoever.

Now, Tripoli being left with one hospital to serve 2 million + people, because Obama and the UN destroyed the rest of 'em, that's a fuckin' real war crime.

Quite sad watching a 3 year old gunshot victim die right before our very eyes this morning while FOX news was reporting from there, because there was no facility to get the child too. Thanks to Obama and the UN.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


"The chart of the crucial 'light sweet crude oil' futures index reads like a barometer of political tension in energy-producing hotspots. 

"Oil, hovering around $27 a barrel in 2001, spiked to $38 when the United States went to war against Afghanistan--a potential oil pipeline route and neighbor to several large producers. 

"It jumped from $33 to $40 in February 2003, just before the U.S. attack against Iraq. Insurgents have blown up pipelines and refineries there ever since, causing a steady climb to $76...

High Prices Caused by Iraq War

Possibly, oi was low in 2008 because Wall Street nearly crashed the global economy.
Gasoline is close to $4/gallon today because the rich use some of the money they save on taxes to speculate on the cost of oil and food.
Obama is one of many politicians, Republican AND Democrat alike, who religiously serve the interests of those voters who fund their campaigns.

The fault lies with voters who think "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat will make their life better.


----------



## shintao (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Hmm, I am not a librarian, but I will give it a shot. Here is what I read. Do you have a different reference you wish to share?

*"...in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force."*

http://www.slate.com/id/2074302/


----------



## shintao (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Is that before or after you add in the trillions of debt per gallon of ME oil?


----------



## shintao (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Yep, prior planning for wars saves lives.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 23, 2011)

shintao said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Destroying all but 1 hospital in a city of 2 million + is saving lives?

Yeah, ok!

What it is, is a damn war crime.

And meanwhile, The Syrian government continues to wantonely murder its citizens, and Obama just sits there.......So, it's obvious, Obama just chooses his "humanitarian missions" based on his own political needs.......He's a scumbag.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



HUH?

Are you a down syndrome patient?

If the "people" wanted to kill Negroes or down syndrome patients, should they be allowed?

Was Hitler right to gas 6,000,000 Jews? If not, why not?

.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence please
> ...



Are you a patient in the Cook County, Ill psych ward?

.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 23, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> I don't give a flying fuck about the UN.........We had just been attacked. .



By whom? Why?

.


----------



## dblack (Aug 23, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a flying fuck about the UN.........We had just been attacked. .
> ...



I don't think it matters. At least not to the mindset that rationalizes things like the Iraq war. We were scared and angry and looking to kick some ass. We weren't having any fun in Afghanistan and we wanted to make a statement.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Aug 24, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Sure.
> ...



LOL! You're whackjobbery is leaking out again sweetheart. It is easy to prove to anyone with a military background and who doesn't drink so deeply of the kool-aid, they can actually think for themselves - at least for a moment or two.
But I get it. It's cool. You and your Right Wing whackjobs can't deny the thoughts and opinions that have been so thoroguhly fed into your sheeple brains.
No free-thinking ability. This is why you do the first thing all whackjobs do - label anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid as a "Liberal", "Lefty" etc... Of course, that is as stupid as your response and also as easily disproven.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 24, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...








Yeah....sure.....






.....that's.....



> .....*what'd happened**.*



*Saddam Hussein* was no *angel*......but, the folks at *BUSHCO* figured it was time for him to *go* (before he started shootin'-off his mouth about business-issues)....and, what better way than to *set-him-up?*​


> *HUSSEIN:* The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
> 
> *GLASPIE:* I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But *we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait*.
> 
> ...



How _fortunate_, for *BUSHCO*, these issues were never discussed, or.....at least.....*publicized*.....during Hussein's trial*!!*​


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

shintao said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...



Shinato you are just angry. I have no issue with people who dis agree with the invasion of Iraq
But your angry about an event that the majority of the american people supported then and now
As far as the debt goes, do you feel the same with the failed stimulus?
It cost the same


----------



## editec (Aug 24, 2011)

Did we win the Iraq war?

Well, what have _we_ _won_, exactly?

Other than a nation-building tarbaby, I mean?


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...




Why do you keep claiming there was crime committed here? you think you keep telling that lie over and over it will become the truth?


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

Poison Gas
The CIA had contacted Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had hidden poison gas among Sunni tribesmen, had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.[109] 


Based on reports obtained by the German intelligence service from an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball", Colin Powell presented evidence to the United Nations security council that Iraq had an active biological weapons programme. On February 15, 2011, the defectora scientist identified as Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janafiadmitted to journalists working for The Guardian newspaper that he lied to the Bundesnachrichtendienst in order to strengthen the case against Saddam Hussein, who he wished to see removed from power.[111]
Result
In December 2009, former Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that he "would still have thought it right to remove [Saddam Hussein]" regardless of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or not.[112]

Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine[citation needed]. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said[citation needed]. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."[citation needed]

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
all you have to do is look


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 24, 2011)

*Falluja Massacre.*

"Through the night vision, I could see them (attack helicopters) hovering around the carnage, scanning the ground with an infrared spotlight that seemed to reach for miles. Once a target was identified, a rapid series of hollow blasts would echo through the skies, and from the ground came a 'rat-a-tatting' of explosions, like a daisy chain of supercharged black cats during a Fourth of July barbeque.

More artillery, more tanks, more machine gun fire, ominous death-dealing fighter planes *terminating whole city blocks at a time*...this wasn't a war, it was a massacre! 

"This wasn't a war, it was a massacre"


----------



## PeteEU (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE



Fuck yea!



> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE



Not exactly..

Attacks across Iraq kill more than 80 - The Washington Post



> More than 80 people were killed and dozens were wounded Monday in a string of attacks across Iraq, the deadliest day in the country this year, police and government officials said.



Not to mention the country is divided up along sectarian and tribal lines now and just waiting for the civil war to get going. 



> 3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
> DONE



Well.. just because they get to vote, does not mean that it is a democracy... it was a Republic after all under Saddam as well.  Also the "government" of said Republic was not agreed too by the political parties until very recently.. years after the last election and there is still not power all day in most Iraqi cities, nor running water or anything else that there was before Saddam fell.. the Government is crumbling on top of that.



> Am  missing something here?



Quite a lot


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Aug 24, 2011)

Saddam's Legacy:

Saddam&#39;s legacy 2 - YouTube!


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Did we win the Iraq war?
> 
> Well, what have _we_ _won_, exactly?
> 
> Other than a nation-building tarbaby, I mean?



After 9-11 with all of the intel we had and the trouble we had with Saddam what were we suppose to do?
I know that people jumping out of the 100th floor of the WTC changed many of us
Saddam lied and lied over and over
after 9-11 he just did not get it, none of those loons got it
there dead now, running and will be dead
I ask you again
what was we suppose to do?


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

PeteEU said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



1) How many people were murdered in the US Monday?
I bet 80 is low
2) The country is split up no different than we are. The N.E are liberal Dems, the SE is conservative Repubs, so on


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Did we win the Iraq war?
> ...



Using the tradedy of 9-11 justify an attack a country that was not involved with the attacks and did not have the military means to attack us?

Should have killed bin Laden.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



How many of those murdered in the US were killed in bomb attacks?

Your number 2, is just off the chart stupid.  Look at the county by county, nation wide red v blue distibution in the most recent elections.  We're split alright but it's Urban v Country.


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > PeteEU said:
> ...



Blind Boo does it matter how people are killed?
I mean at what point as a liberal does apples become apples?
Off the chart stupid?
The reason it has those lines drawn is it has become a republic, like we are
the majority rules
My god what is stupid about that?

I can tell you what is stupid about that, you have been told so many times this war was a failure you do not look at those events as being normal for a country that is no longer being run by a ruthless dictator


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> How many of those murdered in the US were killed in bomb attacks?



I know that if I were knifed to death in East LA, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I didn't die in a bomb attack....

You leftists are just brilliant - no wonder you voted for Obama.....


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I belive they were killed in politically motivated violence.  Whereas the murders here were mostly domestic violence.  Three major division in Iraq are Sunnis, Shiite and Kurds.  We have nothing of the sort here.  The reason the line are drawn is because the ethinic violence was unleashed because the pittiful occuaption was not prepared to maintain order like the occupying power is required to do under international law.

You know next to nothing about when my stance against the Iraq invasion and occupation evolved.  But you keep on bleating....BTW the war was a resounding success.  The occupation was FUBAR from the beginning.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



That is one of the more inane comparisons made here to compare an apple to a rotten orange.

We have committed a shi'ite nation into eventual alliance with Iran, in order to get back at us.

That is not worth what we have gone through as an American nation.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > How many of those murdered in the US were killed in bomb attacks?
> ...



Can you comprehend the difference between politically motivated violence and domestic violence?

Yes to the dead it doesn't matter, however to the living I think it matters that some of the Iraqi are still blowing shit up.


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



You know what amazes me the most about the liberal is?
you think your view is the only view and anyone, I mean anyone that dis agrees with your view is wrong
bleating?
what is a bleat?
Fubar?
are you stating for the record our troops have no idea what there doing?
Have you been to Iraq?

This is simple
Saddam had to go
he is gone
those who went there to fight us, are for the most part gone
and murdering your fellow human being because you dis agree with that person is still murder


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



and we are still shooting shit up
whats the difference except you want it to be different
scum bags are scum bags
politically motivated?
If selling crack was legal, you think we would have the same amount of murders?

Boo its the kool aid you drink. if any liberal would just stop and think for 5 minutes 95% of this stuff is no different than the same crap we deal with every day
the difference is 11 years ago they had no choice in these matters and we did not know what Saddam was up to


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > PeteEU said:
> ...



So your saying that murdering for crack and murdering for what ever reason they are in Iraq is the reason the Iraq invasion failed but what is the reason for the failure in Detroit?
Point is this is being used as a reason the war failed
I state that this is part of the same day-day terror we face right here in this country
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
alliance with Iran?
We committed the troops and money to help them build a democracy
what they do with that is there business

have you ever looked at a map?
Do you really think Iraq would join with Iran to do what?
I mean really


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Can you comprehend the difference between politically motivated violence and domestic violence?



Much domestic violence is "politically motivated."

Your excuse was idiotic. Further, the overall violence in Iraq has dropped about 90% over the last three years. You know, the whole "surge" thingy. You can be partisan, or you can be thoughtful - not both. You chose the prior in this case.


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Can you comprehend the difference between politically motivated violence and domestic violence?
> ...



My oldest son got a heavy influence of kool aid
He now realizes how much you stop thinking with the kool aid from the left

Iraq deals with the same things we deal with daily except CBS spins it. And what in gods name would Iran and Iraq do as one?
Iraq is a democracy now
does the left really think that a country that has a 65% voter turn out is going to walk away from that?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> does the left really think that a country that has a 65% voter turn out is going to walk away from that?




They're hoping the USA will.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Nothing about you amazes me.

Bleating: The characteristic cry of a goat or sheep

No I'm stating that Bush Administration had no plans to secure the country after Saddam was gone.

I see a difference in the planned killing of scores of people based on politcal ideology and domestic violence.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Can you comprehend the difference between politically motivated violence and domestic violence?
> ...



So you answer is no you don't understand the difference between a terrorist bombing a police station to kill massive amounts of people and a domestic dispute?  Got it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I disagree.  I don't see the any warring factions in the US that is simular to the Sunnis, Shiite or Kurds.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 24, 2011)

Liberals are truly fuckin' idiots.

There's no doubt about it. There's no white washing it. There's no disputing it, it cannot be refuted.

Liberals are truly fuckin' idiots......It's just the way it is.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> Poison Gas
> The CIA had contacted Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had hidden poison gas among Sunni tribesmen,



Gee, who the fuck supplied Saddam nerve gas.......er......could it have been one Ronald Reagan?

"According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 *article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troop*s. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography  to assist Iraqi bombing raids".

*Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troopsand US assistance to Iraqcontinued throughout the Iran-Iraq war.* In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 24, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Poison Gas
> ...



so wat does those alleged events have to do with the events of 991 thru 2003
Libs you re writing history after the events have a known out come
Saddam caused these events
not RR
not BC
not GWB
no 9-11 these events we deal with today may have not occured the way they did

9-11 chaned the way we looked at those who threatend us
Saddam was areal threat
he is not nor is the country he used


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 24, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Poison Gas
> ...


So, WTF are you bitching about, lil' man?

You support a man who believes Iran should have nukes.......Hell, that crazy ol' Bugger would probably give them the materials to do just that.......'cause that crazy ol' coot hates this country with a passion.....Like Obama, it's nothing but ridiculous apologies and guilt trips.

Well, all you Obamabots and Paullettes can suck dick, you anti-american liberal bastards.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


Notice how Woodward never said we supplied the actual mustard gas.

Once again, the Paullette paranoia shines through.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 24, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> So you answer is no you don't understand the difference between a terrorist bombing a police station to kill massive amounts of people and a domestic dispute?  Got it.



So you're desperate, and throw shit indiscriminately in hopes of distracting from the total disaster that is Obama.

I get it.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



You didn't answer my question about your mind-reading ability. Don't be shy.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 24, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a flying fuck about the UN.........We had just been attacked. One of our enemies was rattling his sword. He was given many opportunities to come clean about everything, he refused.....
> ...




YES, that is what happened.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



independantlogic
What lies


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Boo
the gangs that range from the krips fighting over drug territory to the Vietnamese in Houston fighting over the shrimp market dominance is no different
It is politically motivated


----------



## traveler52 (Aug 25, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



This is so fucking amazing.

ConJobs/Repugs/Teahadists raged when President Clinton LIED ABOUT A BLOW-JOB (Lewinsky did not even Swallow).   "*Impeach Him*" was your battle cry.

But when:

The Shrub Lied about W.M.D. (Weapons of Mass Destruction), not one demand for Impeachment.

The Shrub Lied about "*Attempts to purchase uranium in Africa*", not one demand for Impeachment.

The Shrub Lied about Biological and Chemical Weapons, not one demand for Impeachment.

When the shrub lied about "*Nuclur Weapons*" not one demand for Impeachment.

When Dead-Eye Dick(less) lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, not one demand for Impeachment.

When Dead-Eye Dick(less) lied about Biological and Chemical Weapons, not demand for Impeachment.

When Rummy lied about "*We Know Where They Are*" (Weapons of Mass Destruction), not one demand he step down.

When Condie lied about Nuclear Weapons "*We don't want the Smoking Gun to become a Mushroom Cloud*", not one demand she step down.

Lies.

Lies.

Lies.

Not one demand for Impeachment.

Not one demand for accountability.

Yeah, the RW whack jobs really believe in accountability.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

traveler52 said:


> This is so fucking amazing.
> 
> ConJobs/Repugs/Teahadists raged when President Clinton LIED ABOUT A BLOW-JOB (Lewinsky did not even Swallow).   "*Impeach Him*" was your battle cry.



So were you born mentally retarded then? I mean, this could be the result of a serious head injury. That's a frightening thought, we all could be only one car crash away from being like you.....


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

traveler52 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




well let us review
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

that should take care of the UNs part in the facts
this stuff existed and has never been found

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. 

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs. 

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. 

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s. 

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic. 

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal." 

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone." 

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons." 

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform. 

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection. 

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report. 

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. 

Biographies:
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, USA

Related Sites:
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center

 These WMDs were to be destroyed. in 2204 they were inbad shape
in 1999
2000?

The UN never claimed to ask Iraq to destroy part of there stockpiles
all of them
Saddam had lied, and Your thread is in accurate
do your DD in the future please
oh yea
500 Tons of Uranium Yellowcake Moved From Iraq to Canada-Truth!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

Are you seriously trying to say we stabilized Iraq?
Are you trying to say that we were justified because we conjured up some "WMDs" after we failed to find any and still proceeded?

This thread is a fucking travesty worse than most of the drool I click on at this site.

Ser. get a grip. Or JOAB, DIAF and then KYS.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

Lastly, any munitions that we "found" there we fucking sold to them. So, I really don't know where you are coming from.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Lastly, any munitions that we "found" there we fucking sold to them. So, I really don't know where you are coming from.



It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
you have no right to ignore the facts

The link clearly shows that every thing Saddam was told to do or else, he ignored. 
was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all

This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do
Saddam is gone
There last election had over a 60% turnout

10 years ago there was no vote'

There economy is growing faster than any other

these are facts u caanot dispute
Economy of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Gang on gang violence is over territory not political.  Very few if any coordinated bomb attacks targeting the government by either of them, unless of course you have a some examples????


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you answer is no you don't understand the difference between a terrorist bombing a police station to kill massive amounts of people and a domestic dispute?  Got it.
> ...



Your opinion of President Obamas performance has nothing to do with President Bushes strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Well that might be because Iraq already had the technology to produce mustard gas before Raygun took them off the Nation who supprt terrorist list.  That allow not only US companies but all other western nations to sell duel use technology as well as supplies to Iraq.  In fact no US companies sold Iraq any chemicals, a German company did.  The US did export several nasty biological cultures to Iraq however.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



so who controls a territory is not political?
ok


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, any munitions that we "found" there we fucking sold to them. So, I really don't know where you are coming from.
> ...





> It is your right to dis agree with the invasion
> you have no right to ignore the facts


I'm not ignoring the facts. The fact is that there were no WMDs, Iraq was not harboring Al-Qaeda, as was asserted either. Which makes the entire occupation baseless.



> was there bad intel? the fatcs say yes, but they also point clearly that much Saddam had decalred to have had has never been seen, it was never destroyed as he was told to do by all


 Bad intel is a fact, yes. No buts about it. Many go beyond that, to flat out lying about intel.
So you expect him to comply in the destruciton of items that were never seen and still havent been? 



> This country in a majority agreed then and now it was the right thing to do


 This is a flat out lie. 

Iraq is also not stable as you claim and is rife with govt. corruption form the new regime we imposed.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You said it yourself.  Drug trade.  Money.  The gangs to not target police recuirment with bombs.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



PRINCETON, NJ -- The well-established phenomenon of Americans rallying behind their leaders and the country in times of crisis has now taken hold with the Iraq war underway. Three days after President Bush announced the "opening stages" of war, a Gallup Poll recorded a 24-point surge in the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, and a 13-point rise in public approval for the way Bush is handling his job. According to the March 22-23 poll, six in 10 Americans are now satisfied with the direction of the country, and 71% approve of Bush's job performance.


todays polls go all over the place
there is so many lies associated with todays polls take your pick

Let me add the other facts I posted you did not reply to
one other item
try to use links like I do
This why this entire matter is so confusing
the facts are simple

in 2003 we supported the war
the reasons were pointed out to exist as I hav e proved over and over
u, the democratic party and the media have ignored those fact


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

I ask you again
what more of a smoking gun does one need?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> You said it yourself.  Drug trade.  Money.



So the quest to control trade and money within a territory isn't political?


The amazing things we learn from the left.....


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > You said it yourself.  Drug trade.  Money.
> ...



And lets add that 62% of the iraqi people voted for there future in 2010, the link is herein many times
that quest that we speak of in this country is pure illegal and is by definition terror


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



First, you used no links. Second, Your original comment is that we still suppor tthe war in majority. That is a complete flat out lie. You used no link to back your assertion either.

Yes, the facts are simple. The Bush administration exaggerated and lied the public into an unjust war that has cost us far too many lives, resources and strained diplomatic ties. 

Your supposed smoking gun indicates that records were in error. So, where were all the chemicals? 

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take but months to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just a tid bit from research for dummies.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



DUMMIES?
All you have done is shown that no-one knows where the "stuff" Saddam had is today
you find a poll done in 2011 on the iraq war, post it
there is a reason you cannot find one

now as far as GWB being the one who lied about Saddam, I hate having to do this but you leave no choice
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


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > You said it yourself.  Drug trade.  Money.
> ...



That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right?  Not fighting to control the politics.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



If you would look at the links  I have provided thru out this thread
those quotes as he ones GWB used were for the most part true


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right?  Not fighting to control the politics.



You realize that being an obtuse idiot doesn't actually help your case, don't you?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right?  Not fighting to control the politics.
> ...



Equivocating drug gangs territorial battles within the US with the coordinated bombings carried out by those fighting against the American-Iraq government really has no case to begin with.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the illegal drug trade they fight over right?  Not fighting to control the politics.
> ...



the libs are out of ammunition
they lied about BUSH for 8 years and then one day they had it all
now look at them
it has reached a level in which a murder in Iraq is still GWB fault, one in detroit is no-ones
That a murder over who controls the country of Iraq is not the same of who controls the hood in detroit
I have nothing but sadness for these people
the reality has so far to go, the kool aid is bland, and denial is still a river in Egypt, they think
This country has seen the other side
GWB made some mistakes, but he did more for my ottom line than any-one ever has before him w2hen it came to the taxes I paid the federal govt


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Right. Which is why Bush was denied a new resolution by the UN council. You need PROOF, actual evidence of a violation. There was no such evidence and still isn't. It was bad intel or lied intel and had no basis in reality. Keep assertign that there wqas a reasoning beyond a vendetta, but all you have is a straw man argument after that based on the opinions of elected officals on what they think...their opinion.

I don't need to do any more than that to prove the war was not only unjust, unpopular and amoral. It was an international crime. Equipped with breaches of international laws as well as domestic ones. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfield, along with their accomplices int he justice dept., need to be brought up on the war crimes they are all flagerantly guilty of.

As to you first post, it is fully inaccurate and full of lies. Try being honest with yourself.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 25, 2011)

March 2003Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

[edit] May *2003*A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that *79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified*, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]

[edit] August 2004An August 2004 poll showed that two-thirds (67%) of the American public believe the U.S. went to war based on incorrect assumptions.[10] The morale of the US troops has been subject to variations. Important issues are the vulnerability of the Humvee vehicles, and the great number of wounded and maimed soldiers [11] [12]

[edit] November 2004The US presidential election of November 2004 (United States presidential election, 2004) saw George Bush reelected with a narrow majority of the voters and has been the only general, if somewhat circumspect, test of the US popular support of the war. The election campaign was widely seen as a referendum on Bush's job performance to during his first four years, and in particular on the validity of the Iraq War and War on Terrorism, as such the election can be seen as an indication that a slim majority of Americans supported the war.

[edit] May 2005A Gallup poll from May 2005 showed that the American public has more confidence in the military than in any other institution. Seventy-four percent of those surveyed said they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the military.[13]

[edit] June *2005*A Washington Post/ABC poll finds that almost *60% of Americans think the war should not have been fought in the first place*. For the first time since the war started, over half of Americans polled believe the war has not made America safer.[14]

[edit] July 2005On July 4, 2005 the National Council of Churches officially took a stand against the Iraq War calling it dishonorable and urging a change in U.S. policy.[15]

[edit] April *2006*A CBS news poll was conducted from 28&#8211;30 April 2006, nearly three years after President Bush's Mission Accomplished appearance. 719 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. 30% of those polled approved of the way Bush was handling the Iraq situation, 64% disapproved, and 6% were unsure. *51% of those polled felt America should have stayed out of Iraq,* 44% said the invasion was the right thing to do, with 5% unsure.[2]

[edit] July *2006*A CBS/New York Times poll was conducted from 21&#8211;25 July 2006. 1,127 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. Thirty percent of those polled said the invasion of Iraq was worth the American casualties and other costs, while* 63% said the war was not worth it*. Six percent was unsure. 32% said they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, 62% disapproved, with six percent unsure.[2]

[edit] September *2006*A CBS/New York Times poll was conducted from 15&#8211;19 September 2006. 1,131 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. *51% of those polled said that, looking back, they felt that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq*. 44% said the U.S. did the right thing in invading Iraq. Five percent were unsure.[2]

[edit] October *2006*A CNN poll was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation from 29 September to 2 *October 2006*. 1,014 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. *61% of those polled disapproved of the war in Iraq, 38% approved,* with 1% unsure.[2]

A Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on 26&#8211;27 October* 2006*. 1,002 adults were polled nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. When asked From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?, *43% said it was the "Right Thing*".[2]

[edit] *November 2006A *Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on 9&#8211;10 November 2006. 1,006 adults were polled nationwide. *When asked if the U.S. did the right thing by going into Iraq, 41% responded yes, 54% responded no*, with 5% unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] *December 2006A *CNN poll taken on 15&#8211;17 December 2006, found that 67% polled opposed the war in Iraq, but that only and that a *majority of 54% believed in an exit over the next year*.[16] An LA times poll done a few days previously had found that 65% believe Iraq has become a civil war. The same poll found that 66% believed neither side was winning and only 26% of respondents agreed America should stay "as long as it takes". *Both polls found that 2/3 or more of respondents disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war.*
[edit] *January 2007A *CBS poll of 993 nationwide adults taken on 1&#8211;3 January found that *under 1 in 4 approve of Bush's Iraq policy*, up 2 points from the last CBS poll in December.[17] The same poll finds that 82% believe the Democrats have not developed a "clear plan" and 76% believe the same is true of President Bush.[2]

A CNN poll conducted January 11 found that 32% of 1,093 adults polled 'strongly' or 'moderately' supported a planned increase in Iraqi troop levels, while 66% 'strongly' or 'moderately' opposed the plan. Three percent were unsure. The margin of error was plus or minus three percent.[2]

[edit] *May 2007On *May 4&#8211;7, CNN polled 1,028 adults nationwide. *34% said they favored the war in Iraq, 65% opposed,* and 1% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] *August 2007 *August 6&#8211;8, CNN polled 1,029 adults nationwide. *33% said they favored the war in Iraq, 64% opposed*, and 3% was undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 3%.[2]

[edit] *September 2007On *September 10&#8211;12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, *33% approved of George Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq", while 65% disapproved of it*.[2]

[edit] *December 2008*On December, 11-14, An ABC News/Washington Post Poll of 1,003 adults nationwide, *found 64% felt the Iraq War was not worth fighting*, with 34% saying it was worth fighting, with 2% undecided. The margin of error was 3%.[


As usual, the trickery worked at first. Americans are proud and believed in their president when the war began in 2003. Until of course the reality of no WMDs set in and the painful realization that we were going to be in this for the long haul.

The Iraq war has not been majority popular since 2003-2004 and grew increasingly worse from there in support.






Yeah, not so much, pal. Still working the kinks out too.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Equivocating drug gangs territorial battles within the US with the coordinated bombings carried out by those fighting against the American-Iraq government really has no case to begin with.



Gang rivalry is the very definition of "political." Gangs are a tribal microcosm of society. For you to deny that gang "turf wars" are political is laughable.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 25, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> [
> Notice how Woodward never said we supplied the actual mustard gas.
> 
> Once again, the Paullette paranoia shines through.


*
Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq*--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.

*The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to "senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program", even though "senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents ... President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program* in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."

Even if Reagan did not provide the gasses, and that's a big If, they approved their use.

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?
NOTHING
but your calling people within the links I provide a liar

I have made no calims that has not been backed up with a link except what the people today feel about the Iraq war now that we have won it
uou cannot find one

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

That remark by Bix in 03 was the straw that broke the camals back
Saddam claimed he had in his possesion these items that have never been found
Blix also made it clear Iraq was not accepting disarmament
this was 10 years after 1993 when he hqad agreed to stop, identify and destroy

you can spin it
you can call me a liar
these are not my words

 American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. 

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs. 

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. 

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s. 

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic. 

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal." 

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone." 

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons." 

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform. 

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection. 

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report. 

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. 

Biographies:
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, USA

Related Sites:
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center

 these are not my words


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?



That it is completely and totally true?

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > you know whats the funniest thing about calling me a liar?
> ...



to dis agree with a man is one thing
to sit behind a key board and call him a liar is another
what is it I have said that was a lie?
If you cannot back up what you say, what does that make you?
clock is ticking

STILL WAITING 
WHAT HAVE I SAID THAT WAS A LIE

HEY DUDE STILL WAITING
BACK IT UP
WHATS THIS MAKE U

Well seeing as though you have nothing to back up calling another person a liar for no reason
you are 1 of 3 on my ignore list
congrats on that, it takes a real, never mind
good luck eith being that way in life
you will need it


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> [to dis agree with a man is one thing
> to sit behind a key board and call him a liar is another
> what is it I have said that was a lie?



 There is no worse blind than he who doesn't want to see...

BTW. you are in my fucktard list.

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > [to dis agree with a man is one thing
> ...



hahah
thats ok
at least I will not go thru life as you will have to
back on the ignore list
for good this time
good luck with being u and when I say god bless
i mean it


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 25, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> BTW. you are in my fucktard list.
> 
> .



Coincidentally, you are on the fucktard list of virtually everyone on this site - left, right and center...


Damn, it AWE all over again for you....


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BTW. you are in my fucktard list.
> ...



Thanks, much obliged.

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > BTW. you are in my fucktard list.
> ...



I do not understand how one gets there
The libs are in denial
the kool aid worked until they got the power
now they have to live with the people they elected and the record they have in place
I hate it for them, but the truth will set you free
thanks


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 25, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


You claimed adamently that Reagan himself gave them the gas.........You fuckin' lied.

And nowhere in your supposed report does it state factually that the US was helping them deploy gas.

You're a dishonest hack....Just admit it, and move on.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 25, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



"....Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. 

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare. "


So, STFU

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam' | World news | The Guardian

.


----------



## JRK (Aug 25, 2011)

I gave the contumacious many chances as we did saddam to do the right thing
for arguments sake lets say we gave Saddam all of the bad stuff he had 
does that change the events that took place after 1991?
does it change the fact that Saddam was told to come clean and the destroy all of the "stuff" he came clean with?
The liberal mind now is in a panic about Iraq
it worked
we are done for all intent
we won
yes it cost us close to 1 trillion dollars of tax payers welath we did not have
when those people were jumping to there death in 01 instead of burning to dath at the WTC by the 100s Saddam was out of chances
and no matter what spin is put on Saddam and the Iarqi war and there ties to OBL, in 2003 those questions had not been answered
today they are and any rouge dictator will know from this day foreward if you play with fire you will be burned


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 25, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Damn, do you constantly shoot yourself in the foot?

LMAO!

Fuckin' Paullettes. They sure a funny bunch o' lil' conspiratist types.


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 26, 2011)

It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...

9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...

Afghanistan will continue to be a unenviable task to combat, I am not convinced we will succeed, we will have to step up the numbers to win, but I do not believe we can afford to walk away...

My cousin was injured on the 15th by a IED along with three members of his patrol in Afghanistan, Thank God for Armored Vehicles, and after the initial shock, my first thought was why didn't we level Pakistan for hiding OBL? 

My brother in law is deployable on the 28th and I hate the thought that he has to go, but I will tell you one very common thread between the two of them, they believe it is their duty to be there...

I have now seen this first hand on a personal level twice, it's meaning runs very deep and very emotionally as well, if I was selfish about this I wouldn't want either of them to be exposed, If I am rational about this, I wouldn't want anyone to die in the perfect world and would say give peace a chance, but neither of those choices are dealing with reality...

No reality is what we faced when Truman chose to drop the Atomic Bombs some 65+ years ago and today we are faced with the same realities, yet we are waffling at best...

If we walk as some suggest, who is willing to bet we will never deal with something worse than 9/11/01? 

We need to finish the job, anything less will leave us vulnerable for years to come, this is not about who or what we supported in the past, it's about our future...


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> 
> 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...
> 
> ...



We have so many volunteers wanting to go over there the marines have made it more difficult to join than it was from what I understand (I have no way of confirming this, but I have been told this by marines)
Thank your family and yes it was the and is the right thing to do


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 26, 2011)

> We need to finish the job, anything less will leave us vulnerable for years to come,



That seems to be the problem, doesn't it? Finishing the job. It's rather hard to finish the job when you're chasing ghosts and boogeymen. We set fire in our own living room and then invade the neighbor's house.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2011)

We have not finished the job, and we can't now because the Bush term decisions put us in a no-win situation.


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have not finished the job, and we can't now because the Bush term decisions put us in a no-win situation.



Saddam? gone
WMDs? gone and or accounted for, done
democratic govt? done

what else was was suppose to do there?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Equivocating drug gangs territorial battles within the US with the coordinated bombings carried out by those fighting against the American-Iraq government really has no case to begin with.
> ...



There very few parallels between gangs fighting over terrritory to sell drugs and the insurgengy in Iraq.  However since you think there are perhaps you could point out a few?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Iraq already had mustard gas before Raygun took Iraq off the nations who support terrorist.  After that not only did US companies sell equipment and supplies to Iraq but also our allies in France, Great Britton, Germany also were approved to sell Western technology to Iraq.  That is how he was able to develop the WMD he had.  Furthermore, the Administration gave Iraq 4 billion dollars in loan gaurentees (Which he defaulted on and we the tax payer paid) from Ronnie.  The attack on the Kurdish village of Habjiba was carried out with Bell Heliocopters.  Guess who sold them to Iraq?

What was the Raygun Amdministration's response to the news of chemical attacks on the Kurds?

Saddam was able to develop advance WMD because he had access to Western technology.  Thank Raygun.


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



What does that have to do with the events of 1991?
1997?
1997?
1998?
2001?
2003?

Your alleged recall of the history of those events have nothing to do with Saddam's behavior in 1991 and there after including what he did to his own people
Saddam was the problem, not RR
Boo the liberal some how has lost the ability to hold people in account for there actions

what Saddam became was the problem, no-one nor nothing else


----------



## Monnagonna (Aug 26, 2011)

The US army can't even take a shithole country like irak, boy do we suck!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 26, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



So it's Dubya's fault that France, Briton and Germany sold supplies to Iraq, right?

(Fuck, not being able to back quote really mangles the thread!)


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

Monnagonna said:


> The US army can't even take a shithole country like irak, boy do we suck!



did you know you reputation thingy says you suck off goats?
what does that mean?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> ...




So right off the bat;



> It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> 
> 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...



What does one have to do with the other?

Big picture though; It's illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.  

There was no 'Iraq war' only the 'Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation' and the invasion was wrong for many reasons, the biggest of which is it was illegal.


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



It is not Illegal to, never mind, thats a first. Who said anything about regime change being illegal? 
where do you get this illegal lie from?
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
this made it legal
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
this made it legal

STOP LYING PLEASE


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



There was no "Iraq War Resolution", there was no Iraq war.  

STOP LYING!!

There were no WMD's found in Iraq.  Old mustard gas that doesn't work hardly qualifies as justification to invade, nor was it mentioned in the Authorization to Use Force.

From your article:



> The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.



STOP LYING!!!

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian



> Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan



The invasion was illegal according to those in charge of making that call.

STOP LYING!!!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


Only one man is responsible for his continual lying, and rattling of his swords.

Only one man is responsible for refusing to come clean after ample opportunities were given for him to do so.......He was given ample opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents.......The third president decided enough was enough, and firmly shoved his rattling sword up his sorry ass once and for all.

Only one is responsible for his own ass kicking.......That would be Sadaam Hussein himself.....Deal with it!......It's all in the following:

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - CBS News


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Actually it has everything to do with it.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



If we followed the policy you're suggesting Jester we'd never be finished invading.

Rules and laws are set up and put in place for a reason.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We have not finished the job, and we can't now because the Bush term decisions put us in a no-win situation.
> ...



WMDs? Never existed. Never found.
The "democratic" govt. is rife with terrible corruption too.....so, why are we still there again?? 

Secondly, the poster I quoted was referring to Afghanistan.


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Why do we have to keep doing this Libs?
hief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]
this was the smoking gun
Blix come out with this, that ended it

As far as WMDs go, what you classify as one and what the DOD classifies one as means allot to the US govt
with that said
Saddam was to have destroyed these munitions as per the agreement that allowed him to stay in power
These munitions in 1991 were not duds
they were not to be in existence in 2004
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
Now you want to argue with the DOD on these being as classified, be my guest
But stop bringing this crap back top me a


----------



## JRK (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
Now this is not from me, this is from the US govt. these munitions were not in this shape when Saddam was told to destroy them
let me add
hief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]
The anthrax nor the chemical agent have ever been found. They were items the Iraqi Govt stated existed and had been instructed to destroy them. where are they? As you can see this did not come from GWB
nor did any of this
"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 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 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." S 
- 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 weap ons 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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> hief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance&#8212;not even today&#8212;of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]



So Blix advised that Iraq be invaded did he?

BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal



> Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal.  The UN's former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said it is his "firm view" that the Iraq war was illegal.



Opps!!!


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > 1) remove saddam
> ...


The current State Department Travel Warning to Iraq tends to confirm your questioning of whether Iraq is stable or not. It sure isn't safe for travel there now. I think we withdrew too many troops too quickly.

Just so you will know how very, very dangerous it is to travel right now here's the report:

The  Department of State warns U.S. citizens of the risks inherent in travel  to Iraq and recommends against all but essential                         travel to the country given the dangerous  security situation. Civilian air and road travel within Iraq remains  dangerous.                         This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning  dated November 5, 2010, to update information and to remind U.S.  citizens                         of ongoing security concerns for U.S. citizens  in Iraq, including kidnapping and terrorist violence.                      
                      The  United States has reduced the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq  and ended the combat mission there on August 31,                         2010. Consistent with agreements between the two  countries, the United States is scheduled to complete its withdrawal of  military                         forces from Iraq by the end of 2011.                      
                      Some  regions within Iraq have experienced fewer violent incidents than  others in recent years, in particular the Iraqi Kurdistan                         Region (IKR). However, violence and threats  against U.S. citizens persist and no region should be considered safe  from dangerous                         conditions. Attacks against military and  civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the  International (or "Green")                         Zone (IZ). Methods of attack have included  magnetic bombs placed on vehicles, roadside improvised explosive devices  (IEDs);                         mortars and rockets; human- and vehicle-borne  IEDs, including Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs); mines placed on  or concealed                         near roads; suicide attacks; and shootings.  Numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq. Although Iraqi  Security                         Forces (ISF) operations against these groups  continue, attacks against the ISF and U.S. forces persist in many areas  of the                         country. U.S. citizens in Iraq remain at a high  risk for kidnapping. The most recent confirmed kidnapping of a U.S.  citizen                         reported to the U.S. Embassy occurred in January  2010 in Baghdad.                       
                      While sectarian and terrorist violence occurs at levels lower than in previous years, it occurs often, particularly in the                         provinces of Baghdad, Ninewa, Salah ad Din, Anbar, and Diyala.                      
                      The  security situation in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), which includes  the provinces of Sulymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk,                         has been more stable relative to the rest of  Iraq in recent years, but threats remain. U.S. Government personnel in  northern                         Iraq are required to be accompanied by a  protective security detail when traveling outside secure facilities.  Although there                         have been significantly fewer terrorist attacks  and lower levels of insurgent violence in the IKR than in other parts of  Iraq,                         the security situation throughout the country  remains dangerous.                       
                      The  Turkish military continues to carry out operations against elements of  the Kongra-Gel terrorist group (KGK, formerly Kurdistan                         Workers Party or PKK) located along Iraq's  northern border. Additionally, extensive unmarked minefields remain  along the                         international border. The Governments of Turkey  and Iran continue to carry out military operations against insurgent  groups                         in the mountain regions. These operations have  included troop movements and both aerial and artillery bombardments.  U.S. citizens                         should avoid areas near the Turkish or Iranian  border due to these ongoing military operations. The U.S. Embassy has  limited                         resources to assist U.S. citizens who venture  close to or cross the border with Iran.                      
                      Travelers  using commercial carriers to enter or depart Iraq should be aware that,  although there have been no recent attacks                         on civilian aircraft, the potential threat still  exists, as does a high risk to road travelers as described above. U.S.  Government                         personnel, with limited exceptions, are  generally required to use official aircraft when entering or departing  Iraq. Infrequent                         indirect fire attacks have impacted on or near  the Baghdad and Basrah airports. There has been no reported damage or  injuries                         to commercial operations or personnel.                       
                      The  U.S. Embassy is located in the International Zone (IZ) in Baghdad. The  IZ is a restricted access area. As of June 30,                         2009, Iraqi authorities assumed responsibility  for control of the IZ. Travelers to the IZ should be aware that Iraqi  authorities                         may require special identification to enter the  IZ or may issue IZ-specific access badges. Some terrorist or extremist  groups                         continue to target U.S. citizens for kidnapping.  Individuals residing and traveling within the IZ should continue to  exercise                         good personal safety precautions.                      
                      The  U.S. Government considers the potential threat to U.S. Government  personnel in Iraq to be serious enough to require them                         to live and work under strict security  guidelines. All U.S. Government employees under the authority of the  U.S. Ambassador                         must travel in groups of two or more within the  IZ and carry a working cell phone or radio when exiting the U.S. Embassy  compound.                         U.S. Government personnel require special  permission and a protective security detail at all times when traveling  outside                         the IZ and outside secure facilities, and may be  prohibited from traveling to certain areas of Iraq based on prevailing  security                         conditions. State Department guidance to U.S.  businesses in Iraq advises the use of protective security details.  Detailed                         security information is available at the U.S.  Embassy website at http://iraq.usembassy.gov and at the U.S. Central Command website at http://www.centcom.mil.                      
                      The  U.S. Embassy provides services to the general public, including U.S.  citizens, in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. Embassy                         to provide services to U.S. citizens outside  Baghdad is particularly limited given the security environment. U.S.  citizens                         who choose to visit or reside in Iraq despite  this Travel Warning are urged to take responsibility for their own  personal                         security and belongings (including their U.S.  passports) and to avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations.  U.S. citizens                         who choose to travel in Iraq should be aware  that Iraqi authorities have arrested or detained U.S. citizens whose  purpose                         of travel is not readily apparent. Persons also  have been detained for taking photographs of buildings or other scenic  sites.                         All U.S. citizens in Iraq, including those  working on contract for the U.S. Government, are urged to inform the  U.S. Embassy                         of their presence in Iraq by enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) in order to obtain updated travel information. By enrolling, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy to provide updated                         security information or to contact them in emergencies.                      ​


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 26, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...



Why, is the US going to stop fucking around in the internal affairs of other nations?

Are the powers-that-be going to deport all warmongers?

.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...
> ...


You have a very short memory. Iraq's Hussein sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul the evening after the Taliban surrendered. They loaded the planes down with hundreds of defeated Talibani and transported them to Iraq where Saddam reestablished numerous terrorist retraining camps in Iraq in order to do worse than take out the WTC again.

Right now American citizens remain under the US State Department's Do Not Travel to Iraq due to kidnapping and other dangerous-to-America activities that are taking place right now there because we moved too quickly to get out.

You apparently do not join the American and EU folks who think Iraq is going back to its old hate America ways.

Why the hell would you want us to put our guard down so they can finish off the rest of NYC, every nuclear power plant in the USA, etc.

Don't you ever read the newspapers?


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 26, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



And you are a US or Israeli disinformation officer. Your story is pure cockamamie bullshit.




> You apparently do not join the American and EU folks who think Iraq is going back to its old hate America ways.




Listen , you retarded son of a bitch, Bush knew that the shiites hate the US guts , that they are religious radicals and are affiliated with Iran. 

So don't be acting like you are fucking surprised.

.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


^^Ron Paul's supporter at his finest!^^


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



A fascist state supremacist supporter at his finest.

.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


I quoted only from American sources, the Library of Congress, the FBI. These are United States Institutions, and I linked everything. Now, I'm going to share something with you that isn't appreciated by you, in fact, it shows that the Democrats are lying to the American public. The American public should know the bullshit story you are proffering against them in order to leave us vulnerable to terrorism. Your grandmother failed to give you a bar of soap to clean your mouth out, I see. 

Hans Blix&#8203;'  report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to  justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush  administration.  Blix outlined a litany of deception and violations of  existing U.N. resolutions against Iraq, even as he argued that UNMOVIC  was beginning to get its act together.  He noted the discovery of 3,000 pages of documents in the home of  an Iraqi scientist, "much of it relating to the laser enrichment of  uranium," saying UNMOVIC believed such tactics were "deliberate to make  discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in  private homes."  
Blix's report escaped the Democratic National Committee's  cherry-pickers.  While using the war to slam Bush, the Democrats also  needed to explain why 77 of them voted in favor of the Iraq war.  They  say it's because Bush had better intelligence than they did.  The fact  is, had any Democrat requested intelligence from the White House and was  refused, it would certainly have caused a congressional catfight that  would have been all over the news.  
Instead, say the Dems, they simply accepted the Bush administration's assessments at face value, and _that_  is why they voted in favor of war.   It is the constitutional duty of  the Congress to authorize war.  That makes it the duty of every member  of the authorizing body to fully investigate the reasons for war.  
For the Democrats to argue that they didn't know what they were doing,  but _did it anyway_, is an admission of utter incompetence, if not outright dereliction of duty.  
The war with Saddam didn't begin on Sept. 11.  It began in 1991.   It continued for the entire decade, including a massive U.S. attack on  Baghdad in 1998, codenamed 'Operation Desert Fox&#8203;.'  Regime change in Iraq was a U.S. policy articulated by Bill Clinton&#8203;.  
George Tenet&#8203;,  whom the Democrats allege cooked the intelligence for Bush, was hardly a  Republican apparatchik. Tenet began his career as uber-liberal Sen. Pat  Leahy's aide on the Senate Intelligence Committee.  He was appointed  the Committee's staff director by Democrat David Boren.  Tenet was  appointed to his CIA post by Bill Clinton.  Bush's role in Tenet's  career amounted to not firing him when he took office.   The 9-11  attacks took place nine months into Bush's presidency  under the noses  of a director of central intelligence appointed by Democrats.  The  resolution authorizing war was passed at a time when the Democrats  controlled both Houses of Congress.  
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United  States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former  Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and senior federal appellate  court judge Laurence Silberman&#8203;  concluded after a lengthy investigation that CIA analysts "universally  assert[ed] that in no instance did political pressure cause them to  change any of their analytical judgments."  
The CIA&#8203;'s  own ombudsman, "also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential  interviews with the analysts involved, that political pressure had  caused any analyst to change any judgments."  
For Bush to have mislead the nation into war,  two things  for sure  would have to be unquestionable.  The first is that Bush _knew_  his "secret" intelligence sources (he didn't share with Congress) were  100 percent right and the CIA assessment was 100 percent wrong.    Secondly,  knowing the truth,  Bush would have to have concealed this  intelligence from his staff, the Pentagon and the Congress.  
Perhaps this is a good time to point out that President Clinton&#8203;  couldn't conceal an affair he was having in the Oval Office bathroom.  By definition, Clinton's affair began as a conspiracy of two.  Within  months, it was all over the front page.  
To deliberately start a war based on false pretenses would be a  lot more serious than a tasteless affair  it would be high treason.   Anybody knowingly involved would therefore be part of a conspiracy to  commit treason.   And there would have to be a lot more than two  conspirators.  To argue that the White House could manage such a wide  conspiracy  and keep a lid on it  is believable only to the  politically naive.    
In short, the Democrat's charges aren't even possible, let alone  feasible, and those who are making those charges know it.   The central  charge is that the president is a liar.   The more irresponsible among  the loony left, including Howard Dean&#8203;,  have said so in so many words.  
Here is the conundrum the Democrats have created for themselves:   If Bush didn't lie, then they are themselves liars for making the  accusation without knowing that it is true.  On the other hand, if Bush  did lie, then they accuse themselves of incompetence at best, and  dereliction of their constitutional duty at worst.  
But nobody will hold the Democrats accountable for lying.  It's only wrong when Republicans do it.​
Hal Lindsey, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
​


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> 
> 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...
> 
> ...



Thanks for your family's sacrifice. We are all better for the heros in yours and others' families.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


Thank you for showing your adversaries the truth. I wouldn't pay any attention to their agenda which is to get their leader re elected at any cost, including the truth that you just set before them.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


You're a fuckin' cartoon.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> Hans Blix&#8203;' report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush administration.



BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal


----------



## dblack (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I like Calvin and Hobbes.

B. Kliban was also good.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> 
> 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...



This is a type of lie that Fox and the neo-cons do so well.

They mention two unrelated things and try to draw some sort of connection by including the two in a paragraph.  

The landscape did change after 9/11 but not in Iraq.  Iraq had nothing to do with it then and still has nothing to do with it. 

Blix said the invasion was illegal and yet you try to use him to justify Bush's invasion.

Epic fail.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Hans Blix&#8203;' report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush administration.
> 
> 
> BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal



Hans Blix also delivered information to the United Nations that resulted in sanctions against Iraq--54 altogether, I believe, before UN action was firmed up: " UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq  appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the  disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to  win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Among other  things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were  unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was  missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the  destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax  that had been declared."

Was his report was signed by him and authenticated as the truth by the UN Weapons Inspection team who found this stuff. Our troops were directed to the Kurdish villages' mass burial areas and authenticated the deaths of all those people Saddam Hussein gassed.

The man was the worst terrorist in the world in his day. Clinton and Madeline Albright backed up these allegations with our own intelligence before Bush ever became President. I read the files on Iraq in 1998 and 1999 from the State Department of Madeline Albright. The information was passed on to the Bush administration and Condoleeza Rice did her job of following the money, the munitions, and other EU authentications by checking out the facts. Saddam's case got pretty ugly, and the Secretary of State's office published and added to Mrs. Albright's info as time went on. I was very interested in Iraq, read it all. Saddam was a very, very nasty man.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> Saddam was a very, very nasty man.



Yes he was.  I can name at least 15 other leaders that are just a nasty today.  

Do you think that we should invade and topple each of those?  If not, why are they different than Saddam?

Do you see a time when we won't be invading a country to topple someone we think is 'nasty'?  How do you plan to pay for all of these invasions anyway?

Ok, so what happens when someone thinks our President is 'nasty'?  Would you advocate for them to invade to topple him or her?  
Of course you wouldn't and for very valid reasons.

Psst, let me tell you a secret... *those same reasons and rules apply to the US and Bush.*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> >
> > 9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...
> 
> ...


Who gives a damn what Blix thinks about the damn invasion?......He's not charged with making those decisions........Maybe if his sorry ass did his dam job in the first place, we wouldn't have had to go in and RIGHTFULLY take care of the problem once and for all......And it's a damn good thing we did it before Sadaam's even crazier sons took over.

Either way, we would have no doubt had to gone in there at some point....Much better to do it against Sadaam, then against his even crazier sons.

And since you love the BBC so much, you should keep an eye out for the excellent docudrama they did, with cooperation from Sadaam's daughters, that clearly show what we would have been in for if their brothers had ever been given control of that country.

Funny how you damn lib's give Obama pass for supporting a group of rebels that we know nothing about, and has been proven that the upper echelon of those rebels includes Al Qaeda operatives.......Funny how you buy into his humanitarian crock o' shit, while Syria is wantonly murdering its citizens as we speak. Obviously, he picks and chooses his "humanitarian missions" based on political needs........Also funny how you lib's give that inept clown a pass for violating the WPR when he sent armed Predator Drones in AFTER the WPR expired......Also funny how you ignore the fact that NATO destroyed all but one hospital in a city of 2 million. It was quite sad watching a 3 year old child die the other day while FOX news was broadcasting, because there was nowhere to take the child....Talk about a fuckin' war crime.

And now, top intelligence officials are extremely concerned that Al Qaeda is making a concerted effort to obtain Qaddafi's WMD's.

So, you lib's can continue to pick and choose your BS outrage, based on your political necessity. The rest of us will continue to live in reality.


----------



## del (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > It is amazing how so many left & right condemn the Iraq invasion of '03...
> ...



^^^^^

serious load of shit/disconnect from reality


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> Who gives a damn what Blix thinks about the damn invasion?



Apparently freedombecki does...and the rest of the world except the Bush apologists of course.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

del said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


Not at all.....It just drive you loons nuts that sombody has no problem laying it out there.

No problem in laying out the abject hypocrisy of the left.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Saddam was a very, very nasty man.
> 
> 
> *Yes he was.  I can name at least 15 other leaders that are just a nasty today.  *
> ...


Fine. I'll have a list of the 15 leaders who murdered 1.5 million Arabs in less than 25 years on my desk by the morning.

Bush set free 50,000,000 Arabs during his term and deposed two virulent anti-American dictators. Right now, pulling troops out of those areas is causing the Secretary of State to post warnings to American citizens to not travel into these lands.

The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.

He's gonna make goddamned sure we have zero wealthy people so he can be jackass robin hoodlum of the year in the next Sharia State - Sweden.


----------



## del (Aug 26, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



which hypocrisy would that be, mouthbreather?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 26, 2011)

"Also funny how you lib's give that inept clown a pass for violating the WPR when he sent armed Predator Drones in AFTER the WPR expired......"

Total BS, brainwashed dupe...Do you have your own news channel?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

> The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.



No, that's an ugly lie and unrelated to the thread.



So now you're backing away from the topic of the thread?

Gee, I wonder why...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 26, 2011)

del said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


The hypocrisy of you lib's, bird brain!


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 26, 2011)

TakeAStepBack said:


> > We need to finish the job, anything less will leave us vulnerable for years to come,
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be the problem, doesn't it? Finishing the job. It's rather hard to finish the job when you're chasing ghosts and boogeymen. We set fire in our own living room and then invade the neighbor's house.



It depends on what your definition of "finishing" means, doesn't it? My suggestion is to make Pakistan into a mound of ruble for hiding OBL, that is quit simple, no one is going to do anything about it if we do...

The OBL rationalization for the '93 WTC Bombing and subsequently the 9/11/2001 destruction of the WTC with 3,000 innocent victims was that our troops were in Saudi Arabia, right? Yet we supported the Afghan's and helped them defeat the USSR, correct? 

So after all of this, your analogy is _"We set fire in our own living room and then invade the neighbor's house"_ that may get a few laughs in a comedy routine, in fact I am sure certain people would do just that, but I know the family's of the 9/11 tragedy and the victims of these cold cowards terrorist bombings around the world, who by the way have nothing to do with our living rooms, would find it quit the opposite...

Nagasaki & Hiroshima put a end to Japan's attempt to rule Asia...


----------



## idb (Aug 26, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > > We need to finish the job, anything less will leave us vulnerable for years to come,
> ...



Make Pakistan into a mound of....???????
The world is such a simple place in your head isn't it?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.
> 
> 
> No, that's an ugly lie and unrelated to the thread.
> ...


No, the truth is, Obama is so desperate and determined to discredit President Bush's astonishing good of freeing 50,000,000 Arabs from despotic rulers, he is willing to pull the carpet out from underneath the Iraqis trying to fight off the old Saddam cabal by removing American troops too soon. That's why there was a State Department warning issued to American citizens. The people our troops were containing are now out to murder and kidnap any American they can lay their mitts on.

State Department Iraqi Travel Warning.

Bahamas, The   08/23/2011
Libya    08/23/2011
Somalia    08/19/2011
Chad    08/16/2011
Haiti    08/08/2011
Pakistan    08/08/2011
Syria    08/05/2011
Niger    08/05/2011
Saudi Arabia   08/05/2011
Central African Republic    07/28/2011
Colombia    07/22/2011
Congo, Democratic Republic of the    07/19/2011
Republic of South Sudan   07/12/2011
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza    06/22/2011
Sudan    06/22/2011
Cote d'Ivoire   06/16/2011
Philippines    06/14/2011
Burundi    06/01/2011
Yemen   05/25/2011
Syria    04/25/2011
Uzbekistan    04/25/2011
Mexico    04/22/2011
Burkina Faso    04/19/2011
Nigeria    04/15/2011
*Iraq    04/12/2011*
Lebanon    04/04/2011
Algeria    03/16/2011
Mauritania    03/11/2011
Afghanistan    03/08/2011
Mali    03/02/2011
Eritrea    02/27/2011
Pakistan    02/02/2011
Nepal    01/12/2011
Kenya    12/28/2010
Guinea    12/03/2010
Iran    10/08/2010
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of    08/27/2010

He knows he won't be able to fudge elections in 2012 because the Republicans are going to be watching former ACORN Precinct Chairmen like ugly on an ape. He therefore, has to rearrange history (which he can't) and get his collaborators in the Media to back up the bullshit with lies and omissions. And he has to keep the blame Bush crap alive with all the omission fibbies and braggadocio his apparatchiks can muster. 

If he pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he can "prove" Bush's war was for nothing, that our troops died for nothing. He has the ya-yas like Carter and others behind him (or does he?)

It's all to discredit Bush so he doesn't have to take responsibility for being the incompetent, pushoff he's always been, and keep the big bucks from George Soros rolling his way.

What a stupid plan. OMG, did I say plan? YES I DID!

Obama plans to destroy all America's rich people so he can prove to the masses how important he is, and when we're all down in the gutter, he can put his foot on our heads and tell the poor folks worldwide, sorry, the American gravy train is not coming their way any more, because he got rid of all the money by giving it to the poor, who squandered it all on drugs and marijuana. hoo hoo hoo.

What a vapid victory.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 26, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.
> ...



Wow, I don't watch Fox or Rush so I missed out on this new talking point.

I haven't seen much worse than this though...wow.

How does one debate such utter nonsense anyway?

I suppose the only logical answer is, "_Obama's rubber and you're glue_...", maybe "nener, nener, nener"?

I dunno, totally caught me off guard I have to admit.


----------



## idb (Aug 26, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.
> ...



I really had no idea that Obama was such a scheming nasty bastard!
And he has such a nice smile too...it just proves the old saying once again once again that you can't judge a Kenyan by his (long form) birth certificate!


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 26, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



*The coup that wasn't

Scott Ritter was the former US marine captain tasked with finding Saddam Hussein's weapons. Now, in this first detailed account, he reveals how the CIA plotted to use a UN weapons inspection to overthrow the Iraqi regime - and how fiasco turned to tragedy when it failed
*

Scott Ritter on failed CIA plot to overthrow the Saddam Hussein's regime using UN weapons inspection | World news | The Guardian

.


----------



## GWV5903 (Aug 26, 2011)

idb said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



No, not at all...

So how many more innocent people need to die before it is a decision you would consider? 

No one wants to make these decisions, can't say I blame them either, but sooner or later it will have to be made...


----------



## FactFinder (Aug 26, 2011)

*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *

It was a failure because we went into additonal debt of over a Trillion and we should not have been there in the 1st place. 

Tell me what value going there was....please please. What value are we receiving from being there still?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2011)

We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.


----------



## traveler52 (Aug 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.



Simply Put and Well Stated.


----------



## traveler52 (Aug 28, 2011)

Double Post.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.




He says as the Arab Spring rolls on...


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 28, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.
> ...


*Who says?*

*"The illegal American invasion* of Iraq and subsequent occupation was so epochal a catastrophe that it spawned a negative phrase in Arabic, &#8220;to Iraqize&#8221; or `arqana. Tonight I heard an Alarabiya anchor ask a spokesman for the new government in Libya whether there as a danger of the country being 'Iraqized.' 

"He was taken aback and asked her what she meant. 

"Apparently she meant chaos, civil war, no services, etc. (*Those Neoconservatives* who trumpet their Iraq misadventure as a predecessor to the Arab Spring should take a lesson; *no one cites Iraq among the youth movements except as an example of what must be avoided)*..."

How to Avoid Bush&#039;s Iraq Mistakes in Libya | Informed Comment


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2011)

Arab Spring is antithetical to the elements released by the American invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 28, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The US invasion of Iraq was not "illegal," and you and yours will find it harder and harder to deny the sweep of history that is playing out before us.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Arab Spring is antithetical to the elements released by the American invasion of Iraq.




The belief that freedom from tyranical dictatorship is possible? The willingness to risk personal safety for the sake of securing representative government and all that goes with it?

Yeah...


----------



## JRK (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.
> ...



war was for nothing?
Do you people realize that 62% of there population voted in the 2010 election cycle?
Do you realize Saddam and his regime along with any chance of him doing any more harm is gone?
we have bases in Saudi we closed for good as well as Kuwait
Iraq Election &#8221; Viewed From Basra, and Dubai
What is wrong with you people?


----------



## JRK (Aug 29, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *
> 
> It was a failure because we went into additonal debt of over a Trillion and we should not have been there in the 1st place.
> 
> Tell me what value going there was....please please. What value are we receiving from being there still?



After 9-11 there was no more UN dealing with that regime
from crude oil disruption
WMDs (yes there was over 500 found that were suppose to have been destroyed and whats worse the amount of nerve gas agent and anthrax that was not found)
ignoring UN sanctions (see above)
To Saddam lying over and over (see above)
Saddam had 10 years to do the right thing

The cost of the war is an item I do not debate. In hindsight we should have had a vat tax attached solely to the war cost and when the war ended as it is now, it went away
Now what about the failed job stimulus? it cost as much in additional debt
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | FoxNews.com


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Since the sovereign nation of Iraq posed no threat to the existence of the world's only superpower, the US invasion and occupation was and is illegal under international law. Those who seek to rewrite history should start by explaining why Ahmad Chalabi fired tens of thousands of capable Iraqi bureaucrats in the spring of 2003, marking the beginning of Iraq's descent into looting.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




The US invasion of Iraq was NOT "illegal." Iraq was in violation of the terms of ceasefire from the first Gulf War, and several UN resolutions made provision for consequences to such behavior. Argue about the details all you want, but the invasion was NOT "illegal" and will never be treated as such.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


*"The legality of the invasion and occupation* of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

"The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that:*'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.'*[1][2] 

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that *various war crimes had been committed*. 

"The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal..."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless you can prove Iraq posed an existential threat to the US, the US invasion and occupation was and is illegal under international law.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...





The quotes you yourself chose to include above demonstrate that there is debate and disagreement on the issue. That alone invalidates your declarative statement on the issue.

Proving that "Iraq posed an existential threat, etc" has NOTHING to do with the matter we are discussing. Iraq was in violation of the terms of ceasefire from the first Gulf War. THAT is what various UN resolutions clearly indicated could (and did) trigger a response. The fact that you are incapable of understanding what a "threat" is beyond tanks rolling up on a beach is a separate matter.

You reference Koffi Annan? Really? The guy whose own son was up to his armpits in black market deals with Saddam prior to the war? No conflict of interest there? Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Arab Spring is antithetical to the elements released by the American invasion of Iraq.
> ...



Your points have been easily and often answered already, so reasking them only invalidates them.  They have been answered.  We did not go to war for Iraqi freedom, and a religious theocracy allied with Iran against us is the inevitable outcome of the war.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Failing to answer my questions DOES invalidate your position. You may deny history as it unfolds before your eyes, but ducking does nothing to bolster your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Your questions have been answered time and again.

As Iraq continues to ally with Iran, the neo-con perfidy becomes so obvious that treason trials of the bushies are the only truly American and righteous answer.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


*When did Iraq instigate an armed attack the US?*

*When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq?*

According to international law and the UN Charter those are the only two valid reasons for the lawful use of force between sovereign states.
*
The US/UK invasion of Iraq was illegal.*

http://cesr.org/downloads/Tearing%20up%20the%20Rules%20The%20Illegality%20of%20Invading%20IRaq%202003.pdf


----------



## traveler52 (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.
> ...



There is no correlation between the Arab Uprisings and the Illegal and Un-Constituional Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Do not try to give credit to Draft-Dodger Dick and Deserter George, it ain't there.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War.  What a stupidly ignorant statement.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your questions have been answered time and again.
> 
> As Iraq continues to ally with Iran, the neo-con perfidy becomes so obvious that treason trials of the bushies are the only truly American and righteous answer.




So, instead of answers we get empty, emotive nonsense. Typical.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War.  What a stupidly ignorant statement.




Oh no, just a coincidence that one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world was replaced with a representative democracy and suddenly all these things started happening (don't forget kids, it didn't start in Tunisia but well before).


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




So, instead of reading my reply you thought it was a better idea to just ignore it and repeat your talking points? How sophisticated.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> *When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq?*





UN Resolutions # 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, and of course 1441 that specifically mentioned a "final opportunity to comply," ring a bell? Just because the UN is a feckless and impotent body that is better at raping civilians and spreading cholera than enforcing its own resolutions does not mean that the US would not - and will not - eventually act on those resolutions even when our spineless 'allies' would not (for a number of dishonorable reasons). Don't give me this "illegal" bullshit.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

All depends on the price you put on american soldiers lives.

To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> All depends on price you put on american soldiers lives.
> 
> To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.


The cost of american soldiers lives would have been far greater had we had to go in with Sadaam's even crazier sons running that country......And with them in power, and they would have definitely been in power, we would have had to go in at some point. That is exactly why special op's had one team assigned to hunt those two down exclusively. No way could they be allowed to survive.

Ya' see, you deniers never look at the whole picture. You live in a box filled with far left talking points. And those talking points have run their course.

All Sadaam had to do was come clean. He was given many opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents. He chose to play games. Chose to play games with the inspectors. Chose to put on a charade that he had WMD's and a production system in place. He fully admitted to his charade. Fully admitted he underestimated the United States intentions. Fully admitted he thought Bush would blink. Bush didn't blink. Bush took that sword Sadaam continually rattled, and RIGHTFULLY rammed it up his ass once and for all.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > All depends on price you put on american soldiers lives.
> ...




I'm a conservative, so going to wars to enforce UN rules and save people from an evil dictator are principles I'm against because they're liberal principles.  Liberals like the UN and liberals want to save people (just look at the excuses for the Libyan War).  

I'd love to see proof that not going to war with Iraq would've cost us a lot more lives of US soldiers, that'd be an entertaining read to say the least.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


You need to study the dynamics of Sadaam's sons. They were being groomed to take power. Both of them were batshit crazy as all hell. Sadaam was crazy as a fox. His sons were as crazy as rabid dogs. There's a big difference.....But then, after growing up watching your father order the executions, and attending the executions of mass amounts of people, and watching him personally blow the brains out of many others right in front of them at a very young age, it's no wonder they ended up so fucked up in the head.

There's a very interesting and well done docudrama put out by the BBC, that was done in full cooperation with Sadaam's daughters....It tells exactly what went on between Sadaam and his sons. Tells exactly what their brothers were all about, far beyond what is already known of them. You get a view into their minds, and what their visions of the middle east would be under their rein. It's not a pretty picture........Look for it. They replay it 2-3 times a year on BBC america.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Nope never said it was.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I already know about them, them being prone to torture and kill their own citizens doesn't make their military capable of killing even more US soldiers than what happened in the war.  I'm not seeing the connection to those 2 things.

Seems like if having the sons and daddy not running was the most important thing a few bullets from a sniper would make more sense than thousands of dead american soldiers and trillions of dollars that we don't have spent.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



First of all the Taliban didn't surrneder.  Second if they had boarded Iraqi Jumbo jets wouldn't they have been sitting duck as we had control of the air over Afghanistan.

What newspaper published that bull shit anyway?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > Hans Blix&#8203;' report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush administration.
> ...



Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


If all it took was "a few bullets" from a snipers rifle, it would have been done.

This isn't the movies. This isn't Rambo running a lone mission.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > Saddam was a very, very nasty man.
> ...




Returning to the 39% tax rate from 36% is decimating American Wealth?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I'm not the one who suggested Sadam and his sons were the problem, you did.  If that's the case, sniper bullets work fine.  I would've been against that as well, but not against it to the level I was the war.

Installing an islamic democracy doesn't mean they'll be our pals, us caring about an islamic democracy was just a lie, look at our dear friends in Saudi Arabia.  They're a close ally of ours and they live by strict, abide or die, Sharia law and there's been democracies in the Middle East we've hated (Palestine, Syria, we hated Iran's former actual democracy, etc).


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



There is no UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2003.  The US invasion violates the UN Charter.  SCR 1441 was accepted by the other permanment members of the SC because the only course of action it prescribed if Saddam interfered with the weapons inspector was to reconviene to determine what course of action to take.  SCR 1441 superceeds all other resolution on the matter.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Yes it was.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War.  What a stupidly ignorant statement.
> ...



Not all democracies are good, don't you get that?  Look at Hamas, or look at Iran.  That is where the Iraqi government is heading, into an alliance with Iran against us, and putting women into 4th class citizenship.  You do not understand that coincidence is not causality.

You are saying then, for the record, you are happy that Iraq will ally with Iran and terrorize its women.  Got that.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


And i'm sure you can back all those claims with verifiable proof, correct?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Check the status of women in the south of Iran, Jester, and the growing close of Iraq and Iran with trade, commerce, and military commissions.

No one suggest getting of SH was bad.  The point is: matters are now worse.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Check the status of women in the south of Iran, Jester, and the growing close of Iraq and Iran with trade, commerce, and military commissions.
> 
> No one suggest getting of SH was bad.  The point is: matters are now worse.


Yeah, if you say so!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The UN passed resolution after resolution specifying what saddam had to do as conditions to the ceasefire of the first Gulf War. 1441 specifically calls for "one last opportunity to comply." The UN passed all these resolutions but never had the balls to enforce them (maybe because Koffi Annan's son was making so much money with the status quo?). When the unrest in the region of which saddam was a key instigator resulted in - after numerous other attacks - the worst terrorist attack on US soil, the US decided to enforce them. The UN can't manage to get anything done but rape civilians, spread cholera, and pass resolutions it will not enforce. That gives tyrants like saddam all the room they need to keep killing their own civilians, threatening their neighbors, and profiting while their own children and sick people die (of course blaming it all on the US somehow). Finally - finally! - enforcing the UN's own resolutions and doing what was in the best interests of the US is not and never will be "illegal." Professionally impotent bureaucrats who live to do nothing productive but rather push papers, talk, and draft resolutions they never mean to enforce are in the end utterly irrelevant, and hysterical cries of "illegal!" are their reaction to being exposed for what they are. Such cries are predictably taken up by partisan shills trying to win 'points' despite the fact that their mewling amounts to nothing in the real world.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What a pathetic attempt at constructing a straw man. Pa-thetic.

And Hamas and Iran do NOT represent democracies. Maybe you haven't been paying attention. The rest of your speculation is just that.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one suggest getting of SH was bad.  The point is: matters are now worse.




You ever talk with any Iraqis who lived under saddam's regime?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one suggest getting of SH was bad.  The point is: matters are now worse.
> ...


How quickly they forget the massive amounts of Iraqi people dancing in the streets when they fully understood Sadaam's power was forever gone......And they sure don't want to remember the visions of the Iraqi people reacting to the unearthing of their relatives in all the mass graves that were discovered and uncovered.

But then, they're just Iraqi's, so who cares?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Hundreds.  What about you?  Most of the Iraqis I have visted with are excited about joining with Iran to confront US ambitions in the ME.  They are glad SH is gone, and they want us gone as well.


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...




Yes, youre missing a lot.
For one thing the country is NOT stable in the least; insurgent related attacks continue unabated, we just hear less about it because the press has lost interest since Bush left office. Does this mean the press was unfair to Bush on the issue? Ill admit, maybe a little, but that doesnt change the fact that the country isnt stable and is in extreme danger of either falling into Iranian hands directly, or turning into an Iranian puppet state.
The Iraq war is an excellent example of an operation that was a tactical success, but a strategic blunder beyond measure as it has destabilized the Middle East and hurt American credibility beyond measure.
Thats just for starters, I could write an entire essay on what a dismal failure the Iraq war was.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




That sure seems to be the attitude (and willful memory lapse).


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hundreds.  What about you?  Most of the Iraqis I have visted with are excited about joining with Iran to confront US ambitions in the ME.  They are glad SH is gone, and they want us gone as well.




Yes of course I have. I have known many Iraqis since long before the war. When did you speak with these "hundreds"? The second sentence of your post is a blatant lie and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

That was in 2003.  Is the electricity yet connected at pre-invasion levels, country wide?  Are the sectarians killings end, yet?  Have we managed to stop the linkage of Iraq and Iran?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Asking "What about you" is a lie?  You goof.  I have been blogging and on talk boards for almost a decade.  I have talked to maybe a thousand Iraqis.  They are glad SH is gone, wish we were gone, and most want to ally with Iran.  Is the electricity at the level it needs to be for a healthy country?  Are the women participating fully in society with their human rights respected and protected?

Come, Ukotare, you are defending the indefensible, and attacking me does not defend your silliness anyway.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

I don't recal anyone claiming Iraq was a modern paradise suffering no ill-effects of a long period of warfare. You like your straw men, don't you?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Asking "What about you" is a lie?  You goof.  I have been blogging and on talk boards for almost a decade.  I have talked to maybe a thousand Iraqis.  .




On "talk boards"? Are you shitting me? 999 of the 'Iraqis' you "talked to" were really Chester 'Freckle' Chesterton somewhere in Kansas for all you know. I mean real people, in real life, face to face.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Come, Ukotare, you are defending the indefensible, and attacking me does not defend your silliness anyway.




I like this. This is always a sign that someone has run out of things to say.

"Aw, c'mon! You know! I mean, c'mon! Everyone knows! C'mon!"

Very persuasive.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

I have know Iraqis and Iranians since the mid-70s.  That's a long time, and I have been talking to and with them for a long time.  Guys, your arguments are falling apart.  They don't want us there, they don't want to be our allies, they want the lights on and us out.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



That's right, it was Reagan's fault!

You know, Saddam kept his mustache trimmed with a razor made by Wilkerson, further proof that Reagan is responsible for gassing the Kurds.

I mean, Wilkerson is made in Great Britain. Reagan RODE in a Bell Helicopter, more than once. AND he went to England which is actually IN Britain! Obviously Reagan gassed the Kurds!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Guys, your arguments are falling apart.  They don't want us there, they don't want to be our allies, they want the lights on and us out.




This is just "Aw, c'mon!" again. 



ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Iraqis Report Better Postwar Life


Poll: Iraqis See Progress - Real Clear Politics &#8211; TIME.com


Archived Blog: Poll: Iraqis miss Bush strategy


Iraq: An example for the region - Iraq Election 2010 - Al Jazeera English

"Although Iraq still sees sectarian violence and terrorist bombings all too much, there is no question that the country has made monumental change to its political system and in a relatively short time. 

This week's free and fair elections are yet another example of a young democracy taking hold in a country where just a few years ago real elections and campaigning were unthinkable.

No country in the Middle East gives its people more freedoms than Iraq does today. NGO's are being created weekly; a civil society has emerged to challenge the government's decisions, demand transparency, represent minorities and bring attention to people and issues that were ignored in the past.

Iraq has a free press that is unrivalled in the Arab world, unobstructed access to the Internet and a military that is becoming a force to be reckoned with in the heart of the world's most unstable territory. 

While Iraq's very young democracy is messy, incomplete and imperfect, it is currently the envy of the Arab world."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> There is no UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2003.  The US invasion violates the UN Charter.  SCR 1441 was accepted by the other permanment members of the SC because the only course of action it prescribed if Saddam interfered with the weapons inspector was to reconviene to determine what course of action to take.  SCR 1441 superceeds all other resolution on the matter.



You're pretty sure the United Nations runs the USA now, huh?

Would it surprise you to learn that the USA actually HASN'T rescinded her sovereignty and that the hated-by-the-left document of the US Constitution is still considered the law of the land by a few, benighted peasants?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

The USA waged an illegal war under international law, Uncensored.  Why do you think the senior bushies don't travel to Europe.  They don't want to spend the rest of their lives in The Hague's prision for war criminals.

We are subject to the laws of war the same as everyone else.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Correct, they're "just" Iraqis, why am I responsible for their well-being as a US taxpayer?


Again, that sounds awfully ilberal to me.


----------



## kaz (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.



We didn't want either side to win.  We helped Hussein enough to keep him from being overrun by the Iranians but not enough to win.  That isn't playing them off each other.

I think we should have stayed out of it.  I'm for leaving the middle east entirely.  But you're re-writing history to serve your arguments, not the truth.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 29, 2011)

The Iraq War was NOT "illegal" no matter how many hysterical lefties screech about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.
> ...



Nonsense, I am telling the truth of it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.



God but you're full of shit. Even for a mindless KOS Kiddie, you are just full of utter bullshit. 

Played the Iraqis and Iranians against each other? Well damn, what a concept...

Iran-Contra caused NCO's to quit?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

What a fucking loon you are. Even for a partisan moron, you are a whackjob.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

You are such a loon, Uncensored, and we are grateful for your entertainment here.  The fact remains that while playing them off against each other the cic played potentially his troops off agaisnt the enemy.  Thaty is why so many left the service when the could.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.
> ...



*I could not help but notice that you could not even attempt to disprove what Jake said.*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains, Uncensored, that we played the Iraqis against the Iranians.  Reagan's permitting the Iran-Contra affair to play out had many unfortunate sides to it, one being so many officer and NCOs left the military services rather than serve a cic that would permit shenanigans such as that.  Ronnie was such a loser in so many ways.


You are so full shit, I can smell you from here.

Seriously, the shit you are posting is utterly fucking ridiculous.

Lay off the damn booze, and get off the the damn far left sites you obvioulsy frequent.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are such a loon, Uncensored, and we are grateful for your entertainment here.  The fact remains that while playing them off against each other the cic played potentially his troops off agaisnt the enemy.  Thaty is why so many left the service when the could.



Nope, he played one enemy off of another enemy.

It's a brand new idea that an unknown amateur at strategy, a guy named Sun Tzu talks about in his book...

Go back to watching Olbermoron now....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *I could not help but notice that you could not even attempt to disprove what Jake said.*



Jake is a fucking moron who thinks his partisanship relieves him of the need to think or offer rational arguments.

No, I'm not going to "disprove" stupid fuck claims like "Reagan caused the NCO's to quit."  It's utter idiocy that only other stupid fucks at KOS or HuffingPo would pay attention to.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *I could not help but notice that you could not even attempt to disprove what Jake said.*
> ...


I was active duty at that time.......He's so full o' shit, he stinks.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Again with the hyperbole, but it still fall upon Raygun for taking Iraq off the nations who support terrorist list.  Without that Saddam get no advance weapons.  Probably get assassinated.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2003.  The US invasion violates the UN Charter.  SCR 1441 was accepted by the other permanment members of the SC because the only course of action it prescribed if Saddam interfered with the weapons inspector was to reconviene to determine what course of action to take.  SCR 1441 superceeds all other resolution on the matter.
> ...



You're pretty stupid if you think that.  The above answer was in response to a poster who claimed the war was sanctioned by the UN.  It wasn't.

The USA is one of the original members.  President Bush (41) said: 

"we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. *Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.* Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Then Junior came along and destroyed it.

That's history.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are such a loon, Uncensored, and we are grateful for your entertainment here.  The fact remains that while playing them off against each other the cic played potentially his troops off agaisnt the enemy.  Thaty is why so many left the service when the could.
> ...



Actually it's called war profiteering.  Sell to both sides during a conflict.  We are still living with the results of that treasonous bastards decisions, um, er, well lack thereof.......


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Right, because Obama knows that when Iraq was put on Embargo after it invaded Kuwait, NO ONE was buying oil or defrauding the "Oil for Food" program, certainly not France and Russia. If only Reagan had kept Iraq on the list, then Saddam would have loved puppies and made the Mullahs in Iran turn to San Francisco style Hippyism.....


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

Fuckin' lunatics!

No wonder the left wing agenda is going down in flames. They're so fuckin' loony it's comical.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> You're pretty stupid if you think that.  The above answer was in response to a poster who claimed the war was sanctioned by the UN.  It wasn't.



Actually, what was said was that the war with Iraq was not "illegal." What determines legality for actions by the USA is the US Constitution, as much as that might distress you.



> The USA is one of the original members.  President Bush (41) said:
> 
> "we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. *Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.* Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
> 
> ...



That's life.

Doesn't make the war in Iraq, approved of by the US Congress, an "illegal war."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Actually it's called war profiteering.



Actually, it's called pitting enemies against each other. It's a brilliant tactic.



> Sell to both sides during a conflict.  We are still living with the results of that treasonous bastards decisions, um, er, well lack thereof.......



What does Carter have to do with this?


----------



## kaz (Aug 29, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's also ridiculous that the US would do it.  The money involved by our standards is peanuts and we run the risk of the weapons being used against us.  We need to stop meddling, but that we stoked Iran and Iraq to sell them both weapons is idiotic.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 29, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Nah, like I said the POS probably get assassinated by his own people, but with wesstern technology he has the means to visciously suppress them, and does.  Thanks Ronnie!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Ronnie's policies caused a horrible mess in the ME.  Cowboy George and Two-Gun Dick followed right into it after upsetting everything good Bush the Elder managed to accomplish.

The mismanagement by everybody resulted in 9-11, an ill-conceived and worse-executed Iraqi War, which pulled helicopter and spec op units absolutely necessary for the Afghani war.  The senior Bush leadership can't travel abroad because of war crime indictment possibilities, and the rest of the world distrusts us.

Yep, we love our Ronnie.


----------



## idb (Aug 29, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So you think the invasion was justified for the purpose of freeing the Iraqi citizens?
In that case you'll also agree with the Libyan intervention, in fact why aren't you pushing for the US to do more there?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)

Because Jester is partisan before he is American.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

jakestarkey said:


> because jester is partisan before he is american.



irony alert!!!


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Biggest problem with Iraq right now is that Islam is moobatland.

Islams focus is on Islam and not country.

I wouldn't want someone blowing shit up in my backyard either - but I'm sure in the hell not going to perceive the threat as a religious one.

The only reason why these tools blow themselves up is because the Qur'an demands it....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2011)




----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 29, 2011)

It's funny how Egypt is a second thought while everyones focus is on Libya....

Egypt is only presently being couped by the Islamic Brotherhood.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 29, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> It's funny how Egypt is a second thought while everyones focus is on Libya....
> 
> Egypt is only presently being couped by the Islamic Brotherhood.



The leftists view a Muslim Brotherhood control of Egypt as a precursor to invasion of and genocide in, Israel.

The thought makes them cum.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 29, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq?*
> ...


Are you sophisticated enough to quote the exact text from any of those Resolutions you mention that specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq?

"It is beyond dispute that these provisions, and the Charter as a whole, impose a general prohibition on the
use of force to resolve conflicts in international relations. The Security Council and General Assembly
have consistently reaffirmed this legal principle.20 The prohibition against force is binding on all
states not only through the Charter but as a peremptory norm in customary international law,21 so
fundamental that 'no derogation is permitted...

"*Only two exceptions*, specified in the Charter and supplemented by customary international law, permit
the lawful use of force. First is the right of individual or collective self-defense in *response to an
armed attack*, under Article 51. Second is the *specific authorization of force by the Security Council*
as a last resort to maintain *international peace and security*, under Chapter VII."

http://cesr.org/downloads/Tearing%20up%20the%20Rules%20The%20Illegality%20of%20Invading%20IRaq%202003.pdf

Since there never was an armed attack by Iraq on the US, and since there was never a UN Security Council Resolution that specifically authorized the use of force, the US invasion and occupation was and is illegal.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

idb said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


The freeing of Iraqi's was just part of the equation.

And no, the Libya mission is ridiculous for the fact that we have no idea who the fuck those rebels are......And it's looking like we may be handing the entire country over to a bunch of damn Jihadi's, who have rich oil reserves to fund their war against the US. Not to mention the fact that he went in their illegally, without congressional approval, and also violated the WPR when he sent in armed predator drones after the WPR expired.

And, it seems Obama picks his "humanitarian missions" (what a fuckin' joke) based purely on political necessity. Seeing as though Syria is wantonely murdering it's citizens, and he's just sitting on his inept, boney ass.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because Jester is partisan before he is American.


You're a fuckin' lunatic, Jane.

Now, where's your proof of all those NCO's and Officers leaving in droves?

You're full of fuckin' shit, and you damn well know it....Just another far left slapdick runnin' off at the mouth.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > You're pretty stupid if you think that.  The above answer was in response to a poster who claimed the war was sanctioned by the UN.  It wasn't.
> ...



Unkotare claimed the invasion and occupation was sanctioned by the UN.  

Furthermore, Congress set 2 conditions on the use of force against Iraq.  It's all in the resolution.  But fact of the matter is Congress did nothing to hold President Bush to the letter of the law they passed.  They disgraced America and should have all resigned when no WMD were found and no ties to 9-11 could be made.  There was no significant threat to America and Iraq was not involved in 9-11.


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 30, 2011)

Wicked buffoon  said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir.

But you didn't complain when Reagan didn't know who Osama Ben Laden,  and his mujaheddin,  were.




> And it's looking like we may be handing the entire country over to a bunch of damn Jihadi's, who have rich oil reserves to fund their war against the US.



And what do the radical shiites in Iraq , who are affiliated with Iran, intend to do with their petrodollars? 



> Not to mention the fact that he went in their illegally, without congressional approval, and also violated the WPR when he sent in armed predator drones after the WPR expired.



The Constitution (1787) does not authorize Congress to invade a country in order to secure israel.



> . Seeing as though Syria is wantonely murdering it's citizens, and he's just sitting on his inept, boney ass.



Excuse me retardo, but didn't Clinton wantonly murdered the Davidians in Waco Texas.

Hasn't the US wantonly executed defendants and incarcerated over 2,400,000 citizens.

Shouldn't someone invade us and protect us from Washingtonstan?

.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because Jester is partisan before he is American.
> ...



I served with self-inflated yokes like you.  Talk to those men and women who left the service from 1987 on and ask if Iran-Contra played a role.  Many will tell you "yes".

Neo-con imperialism only weakens us, Jester.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.  Whenever we do it for imperial goals rather than the needs of the oppressed, we fail.  Simple end game.  Compare the last sixty years to 1941 to 1949, and let's see if you can figure why.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Actually, what I said was that the UN was too much of a feckless, impotent, corrupt body to enforce its (many!) resolutions so the US decided to do so when we concluded that was in our national interest. 

I also mentioned how the UN was better at raping civilians and spreading cholera than doing anything useful. I may also have mentioned talking too much, pushing papers, and passing resolution after resolution they have no intention of enforcing, thus giving encouragement to tyrants like saddam and dirty dealers like Koffi Annan's own son.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Excuse me retardo, but didn't Clinton wantonly murdered the Davidians in Waco Texas.
> 
> Hasn't the US wantonly executed defendants and incarcerated over 2,400,000 citizens..




No. You need a dictionary.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Neo-con imperialism only weakens us, Jester.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.  Whenever we do it for imperial goals rather than the needs of the oppressed, we fail.  Simple end game.  Compare the last sixty years to 1941 to 1949, and let's see if you can figure why.




"Imperial goals"? Really? 


Here again I can tell you never spoke with any Iraqis who had to live under saddam, or certainly Afghans who had to endure life under the Taliban.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I served with self-inflated yokes like you.



Did you get paroled, or was your sentence up?



> Talk to those men and women who left the service from 1987 on and ask if Iran-Contra played a role.  Many will tell you "yes".



Were some in prison with you?



> Neo-con imperialism only weakens us, Jester.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.  Whenever we do it for imperial goals rather than the needs of the oppressed, we fail.  Simple end game.  Compare the last sixty years to 1941 to 1949, and let's see if you can figure why.



If only we had a collectivist like you running things.... You socialists only care about "the oppressed!"


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 30, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Actually, what I said was that the UN was too much of a feckless, impotent, corrupt body to enforce its (many!) resolutions so the US decided to do so when we concluded that was in our national interest.
> 
> I also mentioned how the UN was better at raping civilians and spreading cholera than doing anything useful. I may also have mentioned talking too much, pushing papers, and passing resolution after resolution they have no intention of enforcing, thus giving encouragement to tyrants like saddam and dirty dealers like Koffi Annan's own son.



Prior to that in answer to:

When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq? 

You said:

UN Resolutions # 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, and of course 1441 that specifically mentioned a "final opportunity to comply," 

didn't you.  Or are you now recanting your claim that the UNSC authorized an invasion?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Did you even bother to read the words of mine that you quoted?


----------



## JRK (Aug 30, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, what I said was that the UN was too much of a feckless, impotent, corrupt body to enforce its (many!) resolutions so the US decided to do so when we concluded that was in our national interest.
> ...



This country does not answer to the UN
this mess they created


----------



## Contumacious (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



That is correct. Only Bibi can tell us what to do.

.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Is anti-Semitism one of Ron Paul's campaign positions?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Then why do you want the US army used for enforce UN regulations?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I served with self-inflated yokes like you.
> ...



"Socialist"?  Me?    Son, I am one of the better off fellows in my end of the state, and I thank capitalism for my family being fairly well off.

We did WWII for ourselves and the oppressed of the world, and in Europe we won the peace with the Marshall Plan.  We have lost in Asia and the Middle East generally because we don't include the needs of the everyday national of the country.

"Socialism?"  You live in la la land.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Enforcing any UN resolution without UN approval is illegal under internationial law.  That is why the senior bushies cannot travel in Europe.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Building schools and hospitals isn't looking out for the needs of everyday people? Giving "everyday people" the opportunity for self-governance isn't "looking out" for them?

You are just hawking your agenda.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Enforcing any UN resolution without UN approval is illegal under internationial law.




LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!



Did you actually read this before posting it?


----------



## Rinata (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yeah, so what??? Which one of those things affected us directly???


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Socialist"?  Me?    Son, I am one of the better off fellows in my end of the state, and I thank capitalism for my family being fairly well off.



I suppose slinging crack is a form of Socialism.



> We did WWII for ourselves and the oppressed of the world,



Izzatrite? We saw all the starving Children in Mexico and the Congo, then went right over and killed Germans...



> and in Europe we won the peace with the Marshall Plan.  We have lost in Asia and the Middle East generally because we don't include the needs of the everyday national of the country.
> 
> "Socialism?"  You live in la la land.



Sparky, you truly are an idiot.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Rinata said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...




The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't "directly" attack us, did they?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Enforcing any UN resolution without UN approval is illegal under internationial law.  That is why the senior bushies cannot travel in Europe.


WTF?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


LMAO!

I served with many slapdicks like you....They were called no-go's, and didn't last very long. They were either chaptered straight out, or told they were not welcome to re-enlist.

Now, are you going to give us the proof that all those NCO's and Officers left because of Reagan?

You're the one spewing that horseshit, It's up to you to back it up, with full facts.

Can you do it, or not?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Enforcing any UN resolution without UN approval is illegal under internationial law.  That is why the senior bushies cannot travel in Europe.
> ...



Why do you think they don't travel to Europe, Jester?  Go check on Rumsfeld having to flee arrest and got back home just in time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "Socialist"?  Me?    Son, I am one of the better off fellows in my end of the state, and I thank capitalism for my family being fairly well off.
> ...



You are as goofy as bigreb   Are you as big a drunk?    Some of my fellow veterans, like you, are such a disgrace to the uniform.  We have seen so many 'patriots' like you on the board, no love for self or for country.  Such a sorry bunch


----------



## JRK (Aug 30, 2011)

The Un created that mess with Iraq
As part as the agreement that kept Saddam in power he was to come clean with all of the WMDs he had by document and then destroy them by witness
There is this
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]
then there is this
Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 30, 2011)

The US did not have UN authority to carry out UN resolutions.  That ends the matter.  Our invasion was in violation of international laws of war.  The senior Bushies will be arrested if they travel to certain parts of Europe.


----------



## Rinata (Aug 30, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It made a lot more sense to go there than it did to go to Iraq. We were supposed to look for Bin Laden.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Why do you think they don't travel to Europe, Jester?  Go check on Rumsfeld having to flee arrest and got back home just in time.



Wow you are a fucking moron - even for a leftist, Huffingpo crackhead...

Go back to bigfoot sightings, stupidfuck.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are as goofy as bigreb   Are you as big a drunk?    Some of my fellow veterans, like you, are such a disgrace to the uniform.  We have seen so many 'patriots' like you on the board, no love for self or for country.  Such a sorry bunch



Sparky, the only "uniform" you wore was an orange jumpsuit.

Your love of North Korea really doesn't impress me much, BTW.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*

theres more to it than that;  Bush made what may be the grand strategic geo-political blunder of blunders by neutering the only real 'hard' option deterrent to a militant Iran, a Saddamite Iraq.  

If things continue to go they way they appear to be, in 5 years, it will be as if we were never there.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Rinata said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Rinata said:
> ...




Didn't answer my question.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The US did not have UN authority to carry out UN resolutions.  That ends the matter.  Our invasion was in violation of international laws of war.  The senior Bushies will be arrested if they travel to certain parts of Europe.



And exactly which european country would arrest a former President of the United States? Not even obama would put up with that, and the consequences would last for generations. Which country is that hungry for a shit storm all on behalf of empty political posturing?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 30, 2011)

Trajan said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...




In 5 years there may be half a dozen or more democracies in the ME.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> The Un created that mess with Iraq
> *As part as the agreement that kept Saddam in power *he was to come clean with all of the WMDs he had by document and then destroy them by witness
> There is this
> Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]
> ...



I think those who helped arm Iraq bear some responsibility for the mess.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The UN did not arm Iraq with Chemical/Biological Weapons Technology.  The West did.  (And made some hansome profits at that)

By signing the charter of the UN we are obligated uphold it founding principle against aggression.  Until then we have the Veto!


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

I am starting to see the "arrest GWB" for war crimes crowd showing up

If you believe that there is some law in this world that prevents this country to take action to either defend them selves and or to remove a regime that this country feels is in its best interest to do so, then your badly mistaken

when this event took place in congress
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
It began the path to make it legal
when this event took place in congress in 2006, it finished the path to be a legal war
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

It is so simple I cannot believe that people would for one second think this war was anything but in our best interest


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am starting to see the "arrest GWB" for war crimes crowd showing up
> 
> If you believe that there is some law in this world that prevents this country to take action to either defend them selves and or to remove a regime that this country feels is in its best interest to do so, then your badly mistaken
> 
> ...


When did Iraq launch an armed attack against the US?
When did it threaten such an attack?
What UN Security Council Resolution specifically authorized the use of force against Iraq?

Bush and Cheney are war whores who didn't even have the integrity to risk their own lives in Vietnam.
They should be dropped through trap doors at the end of short ropes.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

The lefties are just recycling through the talking points now. No matter how often they are proven wrong, they think that if they just read through their list often enough they will convince someone.


----------



## georgephillip (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> The lefties are just recycling through the talking points now. No matter how often they are proven wrong, they think that if they just read through their list often enough they will convince someone.


Produce the text of any UNSC Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

I know you've been told to go through your list of talking points again, but we've done this several times already.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The US did not have UN authority to carry out UN resolutions.  That ends the matter.  Our invasion was in violation of international laws of war.  The senior Bushies will be arrested if they travel to certain parts of Europe.
> ...



Do you see George traveling much?  Do you see the others traveling at all?

You sound just like Hitler or Stalin or the other totalitarians.  Basically, you argue, we can do whatever we want, and if we want, then it is right.  That is Uncensored logic, and that is just stupid, and it will be fatal for the country in the long run.

That is not what we want America to be.  We have to be better than that.


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 31, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > The lefties are just recycling through the talking points now. No matter how often they are proven wrong, they think that if they just read through their list often enough they will convince someone.
> ...



It is a fact that the U.N. did not authorize any action; it was quite a little issue for the Bush administration while they were trying to drum up support for the war.


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am starting to see the "arrest GWB" for war crimes crowd showing up
> ...



1993 was the first attack against the US by Iraq
These questions have an obvious bearing not only on past events but on possible future ones as well. [2] It is important to know who Ramzi Yousef is and who his "friends" are, because if he is not just a bomber-for-hire, or an Islamic militant loosely connected to other Muslim fundamentalists, Yousef's "friends" could still prove very dangerous to the United States. It is of considerable interest, therefore, that a very persuasive case can be made that Ramzi Yousef is an Iraqi intelligence agent, and that his bombing conspiracies were meant as Saddam Hussein's revenge for the Gulf War. If so, and if, as U.S. officials strongly suspect, Baghdad still secretly possesses biological warfare agents, then we may still not have heard the last from Saddam Hussein.
Few Americans are aware of the true scale of the destructive ambition behind that bomb, this despite the fact that two years later, the key figure responsible for building it--a man *who had entered the United Stares on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Youse*f--was involved in another stupendous bombing conspiracy. In January 1995, Yousef and his associates plotted to blow up eleven U.S. commercial aircraft in one spectacular day of terrorist rage. The bombs were to be made of a liquid explosive designed to pass through airport metal detectors. But while mixing his chemical brew in a Manila apartment, Yousef started a fire. He was forced to flee, leaving behind a computer that contained the information that led to his arrest a month later in Pakistan. Among the items found in his possession was a letter threatening Filipino interests if a comrade held in custody were not released. It claimed the "ability to make and use chemicals and poisonous gas... for use against vital institutions and residential populations and the sources of drinking water." [1] Quickly extradited, he is now in U.S. custody awaiting trial this spring.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters - The National Interest, Winter, 1995/96
And as far as your feelings for GWB and D.C goes
your a very sick human being, I will pray for you


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> I know you've been told to go through your list of talking points again, but we've done this several times already.



Simply accusing some one of reading talking points over and over is not a rational argument and does not in any way prove or disprove their assertions. 
Since you keep falling back on this simplistic tactic to sidestep the argument, I would be inclined to think you have no response but refuse to admit you are wrong.


----------



## MiddleClass (Aug 31, 2011)

"Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "

Ha lo l- uh maybe because there was no weapons of mass destruction, hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, thousands of young American military men and women dead, and a once oil rich nation in ruin. Why would anyone think the Iraq War wasn't a failure?


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

Trajan said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



62% of the adults in Iraq voted in the last election
BBC News - Iraq election turnout 62%, officials say
Having a base that borders Iran had no reason we are there?
If you say so


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Do you see George traveling much?  Do you see the others traveling at all?



You KOS Kunts are funny - seriously stupid, but funny.



> You sound just like Hitler or Stalin or the other totalitarians.  Basically, you argue, we can do whatever we want, and if we want, then it is right.  That is Uncensored logic, and that is just stupid, and it will be fatal for the country in the long run.
> 
> That is not what we want America to be.  We have to be better than that.



Leftism is the manifestation of stupidity.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

deepthunk said:


> Simply accusing some one of reading talking points over and over is not a rational argument and does not in any way prove or disprove their assertions.




Simply posting talking points is no a rational argument and does not have merit as an assertion.

I understand that the KOS Kunts are programmed to recite certain lines, but there is no onus upon me or anyone else to lend credence to those lines.



> Since you keep falling back on this simplistic tactic to sidestep the argument, I would be inclined to think you have no response but refuse to admit you are wrong.


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Since yousef has been in custody for some time now and it is well known that his terrorist activates were not meant as Saddam Hussein's revenge for the Gulf War and it is well established that Bagdad did not still secretly possesses biological warfare agents how can one still claim this war was justified with this argument?
One could still claim it was necessary to free the people of Iraq from a dictator, but more than a million Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of U.S. intervention, I really dont think it turned out to be in their best interests in the end.


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> 
> Ha lo l- uh maybe because there was no weapons of mass destruction, hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, thousands of young American military men and women dead, and a once oil rich nation in ruin. Why would anyone think the Iraq War wasn't a failure?



I ask you again why is it a failure
you have provided no facts
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
these were to be destroyed
Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.[73][74] In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.[75] Those include:
50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media
So was this

let me add this
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

what more do you want?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Do you see George traveling much?  Do you see the others traveling at all?
> ...



I agree that the hard left is dangerous, as almost dangerous as you of The New Right.  The great center of America despises both wings, and push comes to shove, will have no problem putting you all against the political wall.

You righty extreme facists are not what this country wants or needs or will ever tolerate.


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

The 4000+ Americans killed in Iraq vol entered to be there. you people not havfing the guts to do that should not use there sacrifice for your agenda
respect it or leave it where it lays
It was not your life to judge
It was theres


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK has been answered repeatedly and to the point how the war was a failure.

The zombie denial by the Hard Right continues but no one of worth is listening but enjoying watching the Hard Right gyrations.


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> deepthunk said:
> 
> 
> > Simply accusing some one of reading talking points over and over is not a rational argument and does not in any way prove or disprove their assertions.
> ...



[FONT="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"]But his statement was true; the Bush Administration was famously unable to attain a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of military force. While that clearly did not prevent the U.S. from going to war and wasn&#8217;t necessarily politically relevant for that reason, it does lend credence to the argument that the war was unnecessary and therefore does have merit. Simply calling it a talking point does not prove otherwise.[/FONT]


----------



## deepthunk (Aug 31, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK has been answered repeatedly and to the point how the war was a failure.
> 
> The zombie denial by the Hard Right continues but no one of worth is listening but enjoying watching the Hard Right gyrations.



I would agree, though I wouldnt have used those exact words.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> The 4000+ Americans killed in Iraq vol entered to be there. you people not havfing the guts to do that should not use there sacrifice for your agenda
> respect it or leave it where it lays
> It was not your life to judge
> It was theres



What authority, you insect, do you have to tell any American what he can or cannot say about this?  Do you have any idea what constitutional liberties mean?  Pull your head in, snail.

You may not use our heroes sacrifice for your wicked political agenda.  End of story.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Are you allergic to logic?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am starting to see the "arrest GWB" for war crimes crowd showing up
> 
> If you believe that there is some law in this world that prevents this country to take action to either defend them selves and or to remove a regime that this country feels is in its best interest to do so, then your badly mistaken
> 
> ...



Defense is one thing, aggression is another.  Germany claimed it was in it's best interest to invade and occupy Polland does that make it legit?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You sound just like Hitler or Stalin or the other totalitarians.  .




Read that back to yourself and then punch yourself in the mouth for being so unbelievably ridiculous.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 31, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree that the hard left is dangerous,



I don't think you're dangerous, Jake: I just think you're stupid.



> as almost dangerous as you of The New Right.  The great center of America despises both wings, and push comes to shove, will have no problem putting you all against the political wall.
> 
> You righty extreme facists are not what this country wants or needs or will ever tolerate.



KOS Kunts like you are easy to manipulate by those with bad intent.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

deepthunk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > I know you've been told to go through your list of talking points again, but we've done this several times already.
> ...




Posting in really, really small font does not make your empty charges any more valid, OK?


Go back 80 pages and read the same lefty talking points debunked again and again.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> 
> Ha lo l- uh maybe because there was [sic] no weapons of mass destruction






Yes there were.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> a once oil rich nation in ruin.




It was not a rich nation, it was a rich tyrant holding millions and millions of good people hostage to terror.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> MiddleClass said:
> 
> 
> > "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> ...



Once again, the Bush administrations claim was that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling massive amounts of Chemical and Biological weapons.  And, was actively working on a nuclear bomb.  Were new factories or new stockpiles ever found or did they just uncover some remnants of his pre-gulf war stock that had deteriorated to the point of uselessness?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> MiddleClass said:
> 
> 
> > "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> ...






You're right, there were. Good point!


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > MiddleClass said:
> ...



Wonder where they got that idea from?


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 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 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." S 
- 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 weap ons 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 

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

Well would ya look at that!


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> MiddleClass said:
> 
> 
> > "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> ...



hief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

can you tell us where these went Unkotare?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > MiddleClass said:
> ...




No sir, I cannot.


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



This information was public in January of 2003
7 weeks later we invaded
I cannot think of a better example as to how much spin has been put on this matter
Those item existed according to Saddam existed
Those were items according to the UN they were never destroyed

In the 500+ munitions that were found in 2004 that were later classified as WMDs were also not destroyed as they were to be and as far as I can find Saddam never made claim they existed 
By the way there condition in 1994 has nothing to do with there condition on 9-11-2001, or in 1991, 94, 98

Those were the reasons we went to war 
Saddam could have put an end to all of this


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 31, 2011)

JRK said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It certainly seems that he could have. Talk about going all in and losing the hand...


----------



## JRK (Aug 31, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you realize that we had been talking sense 1994?
Let me add that many thought (and some claim to be true) Saddam was moving these and other weapons out of the country from 01 until we invaded

Stockpiles transported to another country

Rumors have abounded of possible transportation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to foreign countries, namely Syria, Lebanon and Iran, in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. John Bolton told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that these reports give "cause for concern."[12]
Alleged Russian involvement
Romanian intelligence defector Ion Mihai Pacepa alleged that an operation for the removal of chemical weapons was prepared by the Soviet Union for Libya, and that he was told over thirty years ago by Romanian President Nicolae Ceau&#351;escu, KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Yevgeny Primakov, about the existence of a similar plan for Iraq. It is "perfectly obvious", wrote Pacepa, that the Russian GRU agency helped Saddam Hussein to destroy, hide, or transfer his chemical weapons prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. "After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place."[13]
John Loftus, director of The Intelligence Summit, said in the November 16, 2007 issue of FrontPage Magazine that many documents from Iraq point to WMD being transferred to other countries such as Syria: "As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria." His researchers allegedly found a document ordering the concealment of nuclear weapons equipment in storage facilities under the Euphrates River a few weeks before the invasion.[14]
[edit]Syria


Map of Syria, showing its adjacent location west of Iraq
Former Iraqi general Georges Sada claimed that in late summer 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1, Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and piloting them out of the country.
They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.[15]
In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years,[16] Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat, Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.[17] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."[16]
A similar claim was made by Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israeli officer who served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from July 2002 to June 2005. In April 2004, he was quoted as saying that "perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."[18] General Ya'alon told the New York Sun more firmly in December 2005 that "He [Saddam] transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."[19] The Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly also reported Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as having said in a December, 2002 appearance on Israel's Channel 2, "...chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."[20]
In February 2006, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a former Iraqi general who defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991, gave an interview to Ryan Mauro, author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of WorldThreats. In the interview, al-Tikriti, who was once known as the "Butcher of Basra", told Mauro:
I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980s that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, whom he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.[21]
Al-Tikriti's interview has been featured prominently on conservative web sites such as FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily, but hasn't received main stream press attention. Salon magazine editor Alex Koppelman doubts both Sada's and al-Tikriti's story, arguing that Syria's decision to side with the coalition against Iraq in 1990 would have nullified any previous military deals. [22][23]
The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.[24] Earlier, in a telephone interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, said: "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."[25] Satellite imagery also picked up activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq's WMD programs.[26]
ISG formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."[27][28][29]
[edit]Jordan
On April 27, 2004, Fox News reported that "operatives" had confessed to planning an attack on "the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan using a combination of conventional and chemical weapons." Acting under the orders of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, self-professed leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, officials said the plotters entered Jordan from Syria with trucks filled with 20 tons of toxic chemicals. The attackers allegedly planned to kill some 80,000 civilians.[30][31] The chemicals, reported as "Iraqi nerve gas" by Hal Lindsey's TBN International Intelligence Briefing, were said to have been part of a much larger cache buried in Syria. Georges Sada claimed these were the same weapons Saddam Hussein transported out of the country before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.[32] The defendants later denied the charges, saying they were beaten and forced to sign confessions.[33][34]
[edit]Lebanon


A road through the Bekaa Valley
American Internet newspaper World Tribune reported in August 2003 that Iraq's WMD may have been moved to Lebanon's heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley. According to the story, United States intelligence identified "a stream of tractor-trailer trucks" moving from Iraq through Syria to Lebanon in the weeks before invasion.[35] WorldNetDaily followed up the same story in May 2004 adding affirmatively "much, if not all, of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons assets are being protected by Syria, with Iranian help, in the Bekaa Valley."[36]
Former United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw also alleged that the Russians played an extensive role in transporting materials into both Syria and Lebanon, "to prevent the United States from discovering them." Shaw claimed trucks were transporting materials to Syria and returning empty. In addition, containers with warnings painted on them were moved to a Beirut hospital basement. "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence". China is also alleged to have helped remove WMD equipment.[37][38] Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Lawrence Di Rita called Shaw's charges "absurd and without any foundation." DiRita noted that Shaw "has been directed on several occasions to produce evidence of his wide-ranging and fantastic charges and provide it to the DoD inspector general. To my knowledge, he has not done so."[39] In reply to official denials, Shaw claimed that the Bush administration had made efforts to cover up the intelligence data that he had revealed. "Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," he said, insisting the Russian "clean-up" operation "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."[40] Former Russian Foreign Intelligence director Evgeny Primakov rejected the story, telling Kommersant that "all of Shaw's sensational revelations are complete nonsense."[41]
[edit]Iran
In addition to Syria and Lebanon, former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command Lt. General Michael DeLong claimed that some weapons of mass destruction were transported to Iran. Speaking to WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, he remarked: "I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran. ... We also know that before then, they buried some of the weapons of mass destruction".[42]
John Loftus also saw information that led him to believe Iran had acquired illicit material. In a story on Dave Gaubatz, The Daily Mail's Melanie Phillips quoted Loftus as saying "Saddam had the last laugh and donated his secret stockpile to benefit Iran's nuclear weapons programme."[43] Phillips followed up her report by reproducing a letter from John Loftus calling for a congressional investigation of John Negroponte, whom he accused of concealing the information.[44] Salon magazine columnist Glenn Greenwald accused Philips of promoting a moronic and deranged conspiracy theory.[45]
[edit]Pakistan
Former head of the Indian counter-terrorism division and member of the National Security Advisory Board, B Raman, suggests A.Q. Khan may have assisted in shifting Iraq's WMD to Pakistan. Writing for the South Asia Analysis Group, he cites unnamed Pakistani sources claiming Khan agreed to aid Iraqi intelligence officials "who sought his help" in having some prohibited material airlifted from Syria to Pakistan to prevent it "falling into the hands of the UN inspectors." According to Raman, Pervez Musharraf has been working hard "to see that this is not played up in the Pakistani media."[46][47]
[edit]Indian Ocean
In 2003, the Jerusalem Post reported that Iraq's WMD might be found on cargo ships that were cruising aimlessly around the Indian Ocean.[48]


----------



## idb (Aug 31, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



So...in summary, your position is that the Iraq invasion was partly justified on a humanitarian basis to free the oppressed citizens from a ruthless despot.
However, Obama should keep the US out of the affairs of the Libyan citizens that are struggling to free themselves from a ruthless despot.
However again, Obama is at best inept for not assisting the citizens of Syria that are struggling to free themselves from a ruthless despot.

Well...that's all pretty clear...you present a strong case.


----------



## idb (Aug 31, 2011)

No further commentary needed really.


> If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday.


Rumsfeld: WMD issue was "the big one" in Iraq invasion - CNN


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 1, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President
Bushs closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein
was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: *He (Saddam Hussein) has not
developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours*.
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of containment that had
effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said
time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam
Hussein had not been able to build his military back up or to develop weapons
of mass destruction for the last 10 years. America, he said, had been successful
in keeping him in a box.
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and
militarily defenceless Iraq. Saddam does not control the northern part of the


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 1, 2011)

The lefties going through the talking points again and againa and...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 1, 2011)

The WMDs as the failed neo-cons would have us believed did not exist to justify the invasion.  Otherwise, the administration would have announced it from the rooftops, but did not.  Bush has been quoted he would not have authorized the invasion if he had known this.

The neo-cons failed, period.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 1, 2011)

I like the part where Saddam's head gets ripped from his body by the noose.

4 Stars. Totally worth the price of admission.


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



*A brain perhaps....and definitely a heart*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcRfJbfQLzE]Children of Iraq - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo2ONxMIIl8]George Bush 2OO1 speech revisited - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 1, 2011)

The war was a smashing success.
All you have to do is pay $45 and Dick Cheney will tell you so.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Sep 1, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> It was a failure because we took all this heat for going to war to steal oil, then like a bunch of dumb fucks we forgot to steal the oil and let others gobble up the contracts



Yeah...._that's_ what happened....we *forgot*.







> *December 11, 2009*​
> "Iraq on Friday auctioned the rights to develop some of the worlds biggest remaining oil fields. Iraqi officials say the move will dramatically increase production over the next seven years, fueling reconstruction.
> 
> The contracts on the first of Iraqs two-day bidding round went to European and Asian oil companies eager to get back into the market and unafraid of assuming the risk of investing in Iraq. *The traditionally less aggressive US oil majors were present but did not submit bids for the five fields on offer.*"
> ...


----------



## Rinata (Sep 1, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



It's a stupid question.


----------



## Rinata (Sep 1, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> MiddleClass said:
> 
> 
> > "Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? "
> ...



No, there were not. How many people have to say it before it penetrates thick heads like yours?? This is one of the better articles I saved on the topic.

George Tenet briefed Bush on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Bush totally ignored it and Tenet never mentioned it again.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam's WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD's, and Powell's speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods. 

Ring a bell???

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Iraq war - Salon.com


----------



## Rinata (Sep 1, 2011)

There is something else I would like to add about the Iraq war that I heard the other day from Mellisa Harris-Perry:

"The Iraq war did not damage the reputation of the 
United States around the world, is that true or false?

False! Back at the start of the millennium, we were looking pretty 
popular -- 83 percent favorability from Britain, 62 percent from France, 78 
percent from Germany, 75 percent from Indonesia, 52 percent from Turkey.

Five years later, two years after the start of that war, the numbers 
had tanked -- 55 percent of Britain had a favorable opinion of the U.S., 43 
percent of France, 41 percent of Germany, 38 percent of Indonesia and 
dismal 23 percent of Turkey.

By 2006, a BBC poll of more than 26,000 people in 25 different 
countries found three in four disapproved of U.S. dealings in Iraq. There 
was even a congressional report trying to find out why America`s reputation 
was in the gutter, why 83 percent of countries liked us back in 2002 but 
only 23 percent liked us in 2006.

One of the reasons they found? Specific opposition to the Iraq war.

The world`s opinion of us only begins to start to rise again with the 
election of President Obama. You can look it up".

Tuesday, August 30 - msnbc tv - Rachel Maddow show - msnbc.com


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Rinata said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > MiddleClass said:
> ...



Speaking of bell ringing
this is report is about 10 weeks prior to our invasion Your post is not even 1/2 true
These items have never been found
it is the smoking gun
Saddam claimed this stuff existed, not the UN, not GWB

Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg". 

Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted. 

He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said. 

He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
here is 500 of the munitions, that only leaves 6000 un accounted for
again this was Saddams numbers


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2011)

Rinata said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > MiddleClass said:
> ...





Do you feel like changing or qualifying that statement now?


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



he will not change his mind with the facts starring him right in the face
its about this country, ot GWB


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal

Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war - he said he was "looking for smoking guns" but did not find any.

While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were "fragments" and not "very important" in the bigger picture.

"We carried out about six inspections per day over a long period of time.

"All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction."

Although Iraq failed to comply with some of its disarmament obligations, he added it "was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they did not have any".

Legal explanation

He criticised decisions that led to the war, saying existing UN resolutions on Iraq did not contain the authority needed, contrary to the case put by the UK government.

For anyone interested here is the full report by Mr. Blix.

Online NewsHour: Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix Report to the U.N. Security Council -- January 27, 2003


----------



## MiddleClass (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians Dead
DONE
Thousands of young American men and women American in our Military Dead
DONE
Destruction of an abundant supply of oil production 
DONE
Weapons of Mass Destruction found
eh, not done
Stabilized Country
eh, not done

Anyone who thinks the Iraq war has been a success is


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 2, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Just one problem, the oil supply was not destroyed.  To secure the oil fields was one of the objectives the Army achieved almost immediately. 

Wonder why?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

- Middle East, World - The Independent

But Americans still receive a little of our oil from there. 

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Rinata said:
> ...



I love how the apologist try to use the UN and Blix to justify their invasion of Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan



> The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.



No weapons of mass destruction, no UN resolution to invade, no tie to 9/11, cooked and outright fabricated 'intel' from the Bush crew; an epic fail and yet there are still apologist who try to justify it.

Fox really is bad news for America.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 2, 2011)

Obama thinks it is a sucess he is still prosecuting it and has done nothing he said he would to who started it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK cannot produce the document that the Bush administration broadcast from the top of the Empire State Building, headlined "Here Are The WMDs We Went To War To Find."

End of any discussion.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2011)

The (oft-rebutted) lefty talking points on a continuous loop...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 2, 2011)

No lefty talking point, just stone cold fact.

The fabled WMDs did not exist, or the admin would have told God, angels, and all witnesses.

No such release was ever made.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



APLOLOGIST?
WHAT PART OF DENIAL DO YOU LIVE IN?
FROM1/23/2003 just weeks before we invade
*NOT BUSH, NOT FROM BLAIR*


*Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.*Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.

He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access. 

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shure taken from Jews'01 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
A man stoned for gathering sticks02 Sep 2011(Telegraph News)
King Arthur's round table may have been found by archaeologists in Scotland26 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)

 Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.

Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."

*Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg". *

(*500+ OF THESE MUNITIONS WERE FOUND LATER)*

*Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted*. 

He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. *But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said. *He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.

Mr Blix added that Iraq *has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.*

*(WHY*

Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.

But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.

John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

X Share & bookmark
Delicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz What are these? Share: Share          
inShare0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1420179/Blix-weapons-and-anthrax-still-unaccounted-for.html
Telegraph
News
External Links
Unmovic
IAEA
UN Resolution 1441
10 Downing Street
Iraq - Foreign and Commonwealth Office
White House 

*BLIX, SADDAM, NOT BUSH
NOT THE CIA
BLIX CHANGING THIS AT A LATER DATE MAKE YOU AND BLIX WHAT?*


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2011)

How many times have the actual facts been posted? How many times do you bobble-head lefties need to see the same thing before it sinks in? 

You are just repeating the talking points over and over and over and over and over...


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK cannot produce the document that the Bush administration broadcast from the top of the Empire State Building, headlined "Here Are The WMDs We Went To War To Find."
> 
> End of any discussion.



Iraq had WMDs and Terrorist Ties



Gen. Georges Sada, has charged in his book, "Saddam's Secrets," that  Iraq shipped its WMD stockpiles into Syria before the commencement of  Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The Clinton Administration decried Saddam Hussein's defiance of UN Resolutions as he produced WMDs and worked on a nuclear program
The United States military found more than 500 munitions containing sarin and other gases
Saddam Hussein had not reported these weapons to the UN weapons inspectors, who failed to find them in their pre-war inspections because he lied by omission.
Here's what happened when we did find the weapons:


> For disclosing the existence of chemical weapons in Iraq, Santorum  and Hoekstra have been subjected to a verbal firing squad of hate from  the anti-war left.  Many conservatives have not been much better, citing  their disappointment that the announcement was of "only" 500 old shells  or canisters.
> 
> I can imagine how frustrating it must be for Messrs. Santorum and  Hoekstra.  You see, I've been in their shoes.  In October 2004, I was  in contact with reporters from CNS News about their discovery of
> Iraqi  Intelligence Service documents that proved Hussein had WMDs and ties to  terrorist groups.
> ...


 
Failure to report what our soldiers found is what makes the investigative reporters of the press literal Keystone Cops who did everything wrong.

Why weren't people outraged of this serious omission? I've seen the Bush Administration smeared with excrement over this omission. It's nice to be diplomatic, but unless someone had threatened to release toxins into the USA if they did mention it, the press paved the way for the Bush Administration to get friendly fire in a way that history cannot right.

The press is reluctant to tell the truth when it shows our troops went in there, got bad guys, found the WMDs, found where the nukes went (Syria), and found tons of documents in one of Saddam's private palaces that told them where the Sarin was buried, which they procured. I vaguely recollect having read a passage that said it was an accelerated type of Sarin that was the worst yet developed in killing masses of people. Also, the press omitted many, many stories I read of our troops finding masses of bodies in mass graves in 30 of the Kurdish villages Saddam got. They also found documentation of Saddam using WOMDs on the unwanted children the Iranians sent out to the mine fields to step on and eliminate below-the-surface land mines they didn't want their prize soldiers stepping on, in order to clear areas Saddam had littered with landmines during the war. Saddam didn't want these children finding his damn landmines either.

What does it take to tell the cruel left these things are demanded by the uppity ups at the UN not to be disclosed or they will (fill in the blank) against America?

Centcom military website showed that America went into Iraq with a 40-nation coalition that grew to 80 at one time where I was reading. Then AlQaeda started sending homicidal maniacs with bombs strapped to their bodies and threatening undue harm on many of the allies in the 80-nation coalition against Iraq, blaming the United States for everything.

The Democrats craftily and stealthily voted unanimously to go into Iraq, but come election KA-CHING!!! All of a sudden the Demmies developed a severe case of amnesia, and went into full anti-war, blame-Bush mode.

They've never stopped.

The unanimous vote of Congress to enable the administration to deal with AlQaeda is a matter of record.

AlQaeda fled Afghanistan, and Saddam sent 12 jumbojets to Kabul the day the war was over, gave them a hero's welcome in Iraq, set up multiple terror training camps outside of Baghdad, and mailed megabucks to the families of fallen AlQaeda terrorists who participated in 9/11.

We have proofs positive of the justification of removing Saddam Hussein, including a resolution from the UN that the media has also conveniently omitted from its current memory bank.

In fact, I'm starting to think the press has both short-term and long-term frontal lobe disorientation.
​


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No lefty talking point, just stone cold fact.
> 
> The fabled WMDs did not exist, or the admin would have told God, angels, and all witnesses.
> 
> No such release was ever made.



Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> How many times have the actual facts been posted? How many times do you bobble-head lefties need to see the same thing before it sinks in?
> 
> You are just repeating the talking points over and over and over and over and over...


They have to go ask their supervisors what to say, Unkotare, in order to make the facts go away. Sometimes it used to make me want to hurl, but I'm now accustomed to the obfuscating and higher and higher demands that are made to marginalize the poisons that were found in Iraq and the accompanying paperwork found in Saddam's palace basement on instructions of where to disburse the enhanced uranium and nuclear bomb making accoutrements he had received from that German entrepreneur that was on the news 5 or 6 years ago for sending bad things to bad people all over the world--with one agenda, to use them against the USA.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have the actual facts been posted? How many times do you bobble-head lefties need to see the same thing before it sinks in?
> ...



the truth must be told
4000+ american troops died for this and it is the biggest in justice done
EVER
Saddam could have prevented all of this


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I don't know why you keep repeating the same thing over again, Blix didn't provide justification for the invasion of Iraq, neither did the UN.

No one is doubting that Saddam was a 'bad guy', did you have another point to make?



> But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.



But Bush refused to let them finish their UN mandate and invaded unilaterally and illegally.  Just one of many points you include in your posts but refuse to accept.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No lefty talking point, just stone cold fact.
> ...



Another example of misinformation from the apologists.  The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have the actual facts been posted? How many times do you bobble-head lefties need to see the same thing before it sinks in?
> ...



That's an odd reality you live in.


----------



## Rinata (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



What??? We invaded Iraq in March of 2003. The article is from September of 2007.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That's not the truth. You know how I know it's not the truth?

It's because you have zip links to any source links disproving it. Sources that could disprove it woud be at centcom.gov., and the date would be prior to 2006 and after 2003, when our military men found the weapons, loaded with sarin and other harsh gases, until 2006, When two Senators found out about the reports and made them public (see my post above).


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



If those statements had nothing to do with the invasion then explin to me why they would not?
this was not the CIA
there was no hidden agenda here
It was the UNs place in life to assure the world Saddam had done what he said he would do
GWB after 9-11 told him and the UN either clean it up or we would

Blix told the world weeks before we invaded Iraq, after years of sanctions,Saddam nor the UN had cleaned it up
you think this speech had no impact on the invasion 8 weeks later?
And what was illegal?

there where munitions found that met the WMD criteria
the senate and the house approved the removing Saddam by force by policy in 1998 and by mandate in 2002

WHAT WAS ILLEGAL?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I can't have a debate with a crazy person.

Good luck to you freedombecki.  Perhaps your issue is your 12 years old but other than that, you seriously need professional help.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It wasn't that long ago, I wonder why your memory is so faulty.

Blix hadnt finished his inspections, Bush kicked him out to invade.  Bush used the lie that Saddam had nuclear weapons and was a threat to the US via his tie to the 9/11 high-jackers to scare the public into supporting his invasion.

There is no other version of events, only explanations of and apologies for this version, all of which fail to provide legal cover for the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


That doesn't wash. You provide the credible government link disproving my case.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


Good for you, JRK. He has to make up something that sounds good while the other debaters are asking what to do from their supervisors so it won't look like they ran out on the debate. It's all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Wow, like talking with children.  Do you read the links you post?

From your link;



> In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.



"...if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Bush kicked Blix out before he finished his inspections and both Blix and Anan state the invasion wasn't approved by UN resolutions.  Both also state clearly the invasion was illegal as does your post given the _if, then _wording included in the approval to use force.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
met UN resolve?
the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out 
they did not

what do you think the resolution was about? 

early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions
*what part of attack dont you get*


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

> So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
> the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
> met UN resolve?



Blix was in the process of inspecting Iraq and finding these old munitions when Bush kicked him out to unilaterally invade.  

What part of that are you having a hard time understanding?



> the Un was given years to resolve this issue and as you point out
> they did not



Again, because Bush kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them finish their mandate.



Did you have anything else or are we done here?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

Again, from your link;



> Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
> 
> "If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
> 
> The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.



I guess he lied here too, the matter wasn't up to the United Nations or Iraq was it?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
> > the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
> > met UN resolve?
> 
> ...



You're squirming in hypocrisy, Nic_Driver. You're ignoring Libya the Obama doctrine: non-national security,  non-congressionally approved military attacks are perfectly legitimate  for humanitarian reasons. You're remembering selectively what you want to remember about Iraq under President George W.  Bush.

Hans Blix looked for Saddam Hussein's WOMDs and "eew, I can't find them."

That's because he was damned incompetent. Our troops found them in 2003 after we invaded Iraq, and they were just where Blix failed to "see" them.


​


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
> > the anthrax Saddam claimed he had that the UN has never ound
> > met UN resolve?
> 
> ...



Done?
you were done when this began
you have nothing to dispute the facts
1) the UN had years to resolve this issue
2) 9-11
3) GWB said clean it up or else
4) congress agrees 2002
5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they need is more time
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Legal
that simple
they have gave Saddam and the UN 18 months after 9-11 to get it done with 9-11 as the back drop of the urgencey

and you really think anything you say can change those facts?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > So the +500 munitions ound after we invavded that were deemed WMDs
> ...




Ok, so you've got nothing to counter any of the information in my posts.

I do appreciate your use of links that so eloquently proved you wrong.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


No, you're done here, nic_driver. *YOU LOST HANDS DOWN*!


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2011)

These bobble-heads are just a broken record of lies and denials. Their talking points are gonna get worn out at this rate.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



dude you have provide no facts
The UN left on there own accord
the war was legal
and we did exactly what we said we were going to do
my friend denial is not a river in Egypt

1) Saddam did not adhere to the UN resolutuions
2) Congress stated if he does not, attack
3) We attacked

If Saddam adheres to the UN resolutuions then were is the anthrax?
why was there 500 munitions found that were classified as munitions that were to be done away with?
where are the other 6000 that Saddam claimed he had that have never been found?

you have not answered any of these facts?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

> 1) the UN had years to resolve this issue



But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.



> 2) 9-11



What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?



> 3) GWB said clean it up or else



No he didn't, he said "_the matter is up to the United Nations_".  (From your link)



> ) congress agrees 2002



What Congress actually said, ".._if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions_."

Neither case is true as previously illustrated.



> 5) Blix admits 1/2003 the UN is not getting it done, after years of failing they claim all they need is more time



Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

[/quote]



> The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
> 
> "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."





> Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.  "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
> 
> Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
> 
> ...



Did you want to try again?  You're thread is an epic failure.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > 1) the UN had years to resolve this issue
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
> 
> "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."





> Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.  "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
> 
> Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
> 
> ...



Did you want to try again?  You're thread is an epic failure.[/QUOTE]

Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
but if I must, it changed the game for ever
they chosse to ignore nothing

Blix made the statement of the 6500 munitions and the anthrax and the other "stuff" was made on jan of 2003

you keep going past tense as though Blix made those commentd your using prior to 1/2003
he was covering his ass

my threads are not my information
they are from the US senate
Blix and the Un
the DOD

there not mine, I am sorry those facts hurt your agenda
you got a problem with that, take it up with google
go away, your wasting my time and energy unless you can find a link that was made after 1/2003 and before 3-2003 that blix states his 1-2003 where in correct
and one that the DOD states there statements to congress in 2006 where in-correct
and finally one in which the US congress went back on there resolution 10/2002 granting the US the power to attack Saddam

you have reached a point in whish your reality has found a place in which no matter how hard you will try, you cannot change these facts

your spinning the events that in realiy are events that took place from 10-2002 thru 3-2003
events I had little to do with except who I voted for


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > 1) the UN had years to resolve this issue
> ...





> Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
> 9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
> and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
> but if I must, it changed the game for ever
> ...



You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again.  Try to rebut the information in my posts. 

For example, did Bush state ""_the matter is up to the United Nations_" or not?

What do you think he meant by that in the context of the article in the link in your thread that quotes his White House making this statement?

Let's start with an easy one and work into it.  

I'll wait for you to answer before we go on, ok?


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



I keep re peating the same stuff because its the truth
why would I rebutted information that has nothing to do with those events that began on October of 2002 and with the exception of the DODs presentation to congress in 2006, ended on March of 2003
GWB was correct in his statement that It was the UNs place to end that mess
It was also his place to give them an end date
It was also hisplace to tell the world thru congress in 2002, October, that tiime was running out
What do you think after Blix made those comments on or about 1/26/2003 about the missing WMDS, anthrax, etc.... he was going to do?

Saddam opens the doors up
allows flyovers with the U-2
produces the 6500 munitions HE said HE had
Anthrax 
etc...
10/2002 is not needed

why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Ok, your intellectual dishonesty is glaringly apparent now.  I've debated on your terms and rebutted every "point" you keep making over and over and instead of rebutting my rebuttal, you simply repeat the same thing over again.

So what do you think Bush meant when he said it was up to the UN?  

What do you think Blix meant when he said the invasion was illegal because he hadn't finished inspecting when Bush kicked him out?

Do you see how that makes any claim you make from Blix void?

Do you have a direct rebuttal to _anything_ or are you so simple that you've only room in your head for the same couple of talking points?


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 2, 2011)

JRK said:


> why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?





You know why.


----------



## JRK (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



As a liberal you waited a long time before you made it personal
I am not stupid
I go over the same events because its all there is to it
Blix failed
Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not
I make no comments from Blix  should bevoided, why would I do that
his statements on or about 1-26-2003 sent a very chilling message to Bush and his people, along with this country

Dude you not suppoting the Iraqi invasion is your right
claiming a statement or an event that took place afetr 3/2003 had anything to do with Bushs choice, legal,binding choice to invade Iraq except the DODs place in these events in 2006 mean nothing

you will not get because your beliefs will not allow you
you have been told there is more to this than
1) Saddam failed to comply with Un rsolutions
2) congress states if he continues, attack
3) Blix states he is continuing to ignore the UN resolution, not in exact words, but thru missing Anthrax, WMDs stc... its very clearas he says, there not taking it serious

there is nothing more to this than that
did we find yellow cake?
nope
did we find the anthrax?
'nope

Saddam said he had one but not the other
which was the truth?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 2, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > 1) the UN had years to resolve this issue
> 
> 
> But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.
> ...





> The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
> 
> "I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."





> Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.  "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
> 
> Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
> 
> ...


Your link was to Wolf (Clintondrool) Blitzer? Mr. Blitzer salivated 55 times between the sweats every day for 8 years while Clinton was President. Oh, bwahahaha! You're linking a Clintonista drooler?  <mopping milk off monitor>
Thanks, Nic-Driver. I haven't laughed that hard in a coupla weeks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



JRK continues to lie, and I have sent this on to several friends at the U.  They use his and others' deliberate falsifications in their classes as what students should look for in the coming elections.  Several thousand of us do this informally, collecting the rampant lies of the hard left and the hard right and send them to where they can be best exposed.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 3, 2011)

*One thing that is being ignored on this thread, Bush invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He once told filmmaker David O.Russell that 'if he became President' in would probably go into Iraq and finish the job that his father started.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



lie?
I have offerd nothing but links to accurate information
how could I be lying?
October 2002 senate approves the attack on Saddam
Jan 2003 Blix reports that there is anthrax missing and 6500 munitions
3/2003 we  invade
2006 the DOD goes before congress and tells congress they have found over 500 munitions that meet that criteria of WMDs
and you call me a liar?

anthrax
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph

WMDs, DOD US senate
These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

us senate vote 2002
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

you owe me an apology
One should use caution calling one a liar in a public realm as this
dude there is nothing more to this than this

Congress gives the red light 02
Blix reports the exact thing congress gives the ok
03
we invade
03
Proof that Saddam had not meet UN resolution to US senate 2006

These are not my words, likns nor or they my events

jake you owe mean apology
NOW


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2011)

The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of.  Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence.  He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.

This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of.  Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence.  He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.
> 
> This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.



Jake there is nothing silly about this
younowe me an apology
and distributing the facts that I have put before you will ony make you more liable than you are
use caution threating people Jake
youe aslo going on my ignore list


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK believes his distortions of truth to reach an invalid conclusion for propaganda purposes.

I threatened no one at all, but JRK needs to realizes that choices have consquences.

JRK should consider apologizing to the entire board for what he does in this thread.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK believes his distortions of truth to reach an invalid conclusion for propaganda purposes.
> 
> I threatened no one at all, but JRK needs to realizes that choices have consquences.
> 
> JRK should consider apologizing to the entire board for what he does in this thread.



goodbye Jake
good luck with your life
I feel sorry for you


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2011)

That is your right, JRK, but most of us are feeling sorry that you can't stay and learn.  Best of luck on your journey.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

what part of ignore dont you understand


----------



## Rinata (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of.  Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence.  He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.
> ...



Correct your errors before you submit your post. It makes you look immature and not very credible.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> Blix failed
> Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not



Neither does Bush but Bush was clear when said it was up to Blix (the UN)...then Bush kicked Blix and the other inspectors out, forced them to stop looking for WMD's and then Bush invaded.

Now you're using the fact that Blix was unsuccessful in his search as some sort of proof of something when Bush is the one that ended the inspections and failed to fulfill the UN Mandate prior to his invasion of Iraq.

Do you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of.  Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence.  He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.
> 
> This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.



You clearly lack the character to be honest in this discussion because your predetermined conclusions are all that matter to you. You should be ashamed.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Blix failed
> > Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not
> 
> 
> ...



Blix failed because of Saddam
GWB could have not been more clear
as well as the US senate
No I am not using Blixes failures, I am usinig accurate information

Saddam made those claims, not Blix
Saddam stated he had 6500 munitions
anthrax
etc....
where blix failed was his after invasion comments covering his butt instaed of blaming saddam


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk



> He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
> 
>  He said he was in favour of a second UN resolution.
> 
> ...



I thought this quote was particularly timely;



> 4.26pm: Asked what would have happened if there had not been an invasion in March 2003, Blix said he would have completed the work and introduced proper monitoring. Sir Lawrence Freedman asks him for alternative scenarios. He said the diplomatic route could have been backed up by force, but not 250,000 men. Such pressure might have allowed the investigations process to be concluded. Blix said one of his conclusions from the aftermath of the invasion is that anarchy can sometimes be worse than tyranny.



Bush wanted to invade so he did.  It didn't matter what anyone else said he was going to invade so he did.

According to international law, you can't do that.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> Blix failed because of Saddam
> GWB could have not been more clear
> as well as the US senate
> No I am not using Blixes failures, I am usinig accurate information



How could Blix have failed when he wasn't allowed to complete?

You're not making sense.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> Saddam made those claims, not Blix
> Saddam stated he had 6500 munitions
> anthrax
> etc....
> where blix failed was his after invasion comments covering his butt instaed of blaming saddam



And Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors who were uncovering more each day; that was the UN mandate...that is until Bush kicked them out of course.

The UN Resolution was for Saddam to allow inspections, and he did.

That's ruins your whole argument, do you see how it does?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK  
Registered User
Member #28394



> Blix failed



then

JRK  
Registered User
Member #28394



> No I am not using Blixes failures



Seriously?

Please try to make sense and stay with your argument.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of.  Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence.  He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.
> ...



This has become the problem with the entire liberal movement. 
Denial
Just as Obama used our money with his stimulus

All i have done is provided history
and in return what I get from the left is being told I should be ashamed

never about the subject with them


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Come on JRK.  I've specifically rebutted your points but you simply repeat the same, now debunked, points without offering any answer to the obvious dichotomy you post.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK
> Registered User
> Member #28394
> 
> ...



There is no argument here
there is history and there is ou ignoring it
i have grown tired of this debate with you and until you provide any information that disutes history
you will be ignored


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



did the senate vote in 02 to authorize the attack?
did blix state in 03 that Iraq had weapons and Chemicals that were un accounted for?
did the DOD present to congress in 06 that the 500+ munitions found in Iraq met the criteria for WMDs?

What more history is to be provided?
What have you provided that de bunks this hoistory?

adding to this would be an attempt to spin history


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News



> (AP)  U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.
> 
> A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.
> 
> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.





> Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday.
> 
> "It's unfortunate we have to leave now," Ueki said at the airport. "I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best."
> 
> U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.



This is an interesting quote here;



> After the speech, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations dismissed the threat.
> 
> "The Iraqi side refused to accept what has been said by Bush, and this will be really the very bad solution for the whole region, for Iraq, for the United States ... and for humanity," said Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri. "This will destabilize not only the region but other parts of the world. So I think this would be a mistake, a grave mistake from the part of the American administration to launch this war against my country."



How right he was, eh JRK?

It really is too bad that Bush kicked the inspectors out and invaded unilaterally, in opposition to international law (that means illegal BTW).  

Don't you think it's rather insightful of the Iraqi ambassador to see the effects of Bush's invasion so clearly?  I thought it showed a level of foresight clearly lacking in the Bush administration. In my opinion, his was the most myopic administration ever.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you finally got it
your opion
and I have never tried to change what your opinion is
You think we should have never invaded Iraq
Our president and those who we voted to represent us thought different 

One more thing
why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?
his own people hung him for his crimes


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> did the senate vote in 02 to authorize the attack?



Ok JRK, did you want to go over each point, one at a time?  It appears that when I put everything in one post you skip over points.

You originally used this link here, remember?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN



> In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.



The word "if" means there is at least one qualifier to the authorization to use force.  

Bush ended the inspections and invaded, that means the UN didn't provide cover for his invasion nor did his invasion meet the specifics of the authorization to use force.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> One more thing
> why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?



Wow, you're kidding right?  Who's giving Saddam a free pass on anything?

Do you even understand my argument?


----------



## traveler52 (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Rinata said:
> ...



There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There was NO MOBILE WEAPONS LABORATORY.

There were NO UN-MANNED AERIAL VEHICLES. 

There was NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE "YELLOW CAKE URANIUM".

THERE WERE HOWEVER LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES AND GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LIES.


----------



## kaz (Sep 3, 2011)

traveler52 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



So the French, Russians and UN were liars?  You're probably right...


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> you finally got it
> your opion
> and I have never tried to change what your opinion is
> You think we should have never invaded Iraq
> Our president and those who we voted to represent us thought different



What I said was it was my opinion that his was the most myopic administration ever.  You try to take that and extrapolate it to fit your agenda.  I never said it was my opinion they shouldn't have invaded although that's true.

I've only argued facts and you are beginning to really look silly.  Take a step back and reread some of the posts, try to catch up before you really damage your image and reputation on this BB.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > One more thing
> > why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I think I do
you think we should have not invaded 
that we were lied to and those lies are what we invaded on

I do not know what it is you do for a living

Information that as at best "different" has to find a breaking point
with Iraq it was Saddam his self
Blixes comments on or about 1/27/2002
Saddam claimed to have 6500 munitions
not the CIA
Blix
the UN
Powell
GWB

he claimed he had the anthrax
etc....

He allows no U2 fly-overs
he does nothing to help in resolvig these matters

your feelings on these events are your to keep and I respect that, but to ignore both sides of this story to justify them does this country no good

You also ignore the fact the 500+ munitions that were found had been there long before 2004, they were suppose to have part of those that were to be destroyedand there condition in 1994 were probably far different than in 2004


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> Yes I think I do



No, you don't.  

I'm countering your argument(s) directly, providing direct rebuttals to each point and I&#8217;m still waiting for your response to my latest rebuttal. 

Try to stay on topic please


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> he does nothing to help in resolvig these matters



I assume you're talking about Saddam in this quote, correct?

Saddam allowed inspectors in and gave them access to every site for which they requested access.  Bush ended inspections prematurely.

This historical fact destroys your argument, do you see that JRK?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk



> &#8226; He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "*I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."*



Blix said Saddam was increasingly cooperative while the Bush administration was dismissing the usefulness of the inspections.  

Why would you take the word of the Bush administration over the actual inspector when the question surrounds Saddam&#8217;s cooperation?  Bush wasn't there and his administration stated in no uncertain terms that it was up to Blix.

But Bush didn't let them finish inspecting Iraq, so it wasn't really up to the UN was it JRK?  

Do you think Bush was lying or simply mistaken?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > One more thing
> ...



You notice how you don't answer my question JRK?

It's a simple question but you avoid it altogether.  

Just an example of how you avoid facts that are in opposition to your prejudice.

Can you justify your question?  Who is it that's giving Saddam a free pass?


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

traveler52 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
that should take care of the WMds

Of note too is a January 2004 revelation by Syrian journalist defector Nizar Nayuf. He reported there were three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMDs had been transported prior to the 2003 invasion and were being stored. He also revealed some of these sites were being built with North Korean cooperation. This explained why three years later Israel attacked a nuclear facility being built in Syria by Pyongyang  and Syrias subsequent failure to criticize Israel for fear of drawing further international attention to what Damascus had been doing.

Five years after Joe Wilsons op-ed claimed no yellowcake was sold to Iraq  the ease with which Saddam could have snapped his fingers and reinstituted his nuclear program became apparent. In July 2008, in an operation kept secret at the time, 37 military air cargo flights shipped more than 500 metric tons of yellowcake  found in Iraq  out of the country for further transport and remediation to Canada.

that should take care of the yellow cake

Media Slow To Show WikiLeaks Justified Iraq War - HUMAN EVENTS

mothe fu----?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

That should take care of the yellow cake and I've already destroyed your other 'arguments'.


----------



## kaz (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Blix said Saddam was increasingly cooperative while the Bush administration was dismissing the usefulness of the inspections



Talk about spin.  He said Saddam had gone from completely impeding the investigation to that he thought he could complete it despite Hussein's lack of cooperation.  While that does technically meet the definition of "increasing" cooperation, clearly it's phrased that way to be intentionally misleading.

I opposed the wars, but the Left's endless efforts like yours to weasel out of your equal culpability is crap and I reject it.  Your politicians were just as guilty.  Iraq wasn't our business and wouldn't have been regardless of the existence of WMD's.  All this endless endless cat and mouse game does is show you have no conviction and never did.

If the left had any integrity, you should say "we" were wrong, and we learned our lesson to not meddle in other people's affairs.  That would set you apart from the Republicans.  Your endless finger pointing blame shifting games don't.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > you finally got it
> > your opion
> > and I have never tried to change what your opinion is
> > You think we should have never invaded Iraq
> ...



Look
if you think that about me, then just ignore me ok
you have not argued one fact because no one can argue that the senate approved the attack in 02, that Blix stated in 03 that Iraq had not got it yet and that he thought there was anthrax still there as well as WMDs and that in 06 the DOD prvided proof that he was right about the WMDs, just not the number


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > traveler52 said:
> ...



What that there was yellow cake in Iraq?
where in the hell do you think it came from?
did you read the wikileak link?
you are only making it worse for yourself

and you have destoroyed nothing kid
CONGRESS VOTED TO ARRACK 2002
BLIX GAVE THE REAON TO ATTACK 03
DOD GAVE EVIDENSE THE ATTACK WAS JUSTIFIED 2006
you have not destroyed but one thing
any respect you had on this message board
NOW GO AWAY


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 3, 2011)

kaz said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Blix said Saddam was increasingly cooperative while the Bush administration was dismissing the usefulness of the inspections
> ...



I remember how happy the repubs were when the dems supported the effort to go into Iraq! The love was touching! ha ha

Nice of y'all to share the spoils of the Iraq War! Kind of odd though, considering how much you guys always ridicule libs and never give them credit for doing anything well. Except in this case....hmmm! lol


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 3, 2011)

Nothing is worse than a uneccessary war. there is a good reason repubs are so eager to "share" this one with dems. ha ha


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

kaz said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Blix said Saddam was increasingly cooperative while the Bush administration was dismissing the usefulness of the inspections
> ...




I respect your feelings
Saddam does the right thing 10 years prior none of this happens
my intent is not to point fingers
Obama was elected on lies
whether you support the war or not, the number of lies that got Obama elected many of us have made a commitment to share the truth
not the the whole yruth, but that part that was never told


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



dont you mean leis?  he was born in hawaii after all!


----------



## sparky (Sep 3, 2011)

> What that there was yellow cake in Iraq?
> where in the hell do you think it came from?
> did you read the wikileak link?
> you are only making it worse for yourself






*Spring me from this fated flop you fools
I ran one step ahead
As you followed in the trance
Between McClellan's pages that were pressed
In jingoland's hot, fevered iron
This could be my last dance

Junior's Lark is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green money flowing down
Someone left the yellowcake  in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

I recall the yellowcake deal
Foaming like a righties swollen gland
Karl Rove had us on our knees
The Congress, like tender babies in his hands
All those ol' peckers were a breeze

Jiunior's lark is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green money flowing down
Someone left the yellowcake in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!

[break]

Will there be pardon song for me
Or should I sing ?
Will Valerie take the reaming for me
her neck someone should ring 
I will drink the motu wine tonight
And never let you catch me screwing your sons
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
You'll still be the most fun...

I will take media into my hands and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes and I will abuse it
I will have the things that I desire
And my money flow like rivers ,then i will fly.... 
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
I'll be thinking of you
Because it's all my pie

[extended break]


Junior's Lark is melting in the dark
All that sweet, green money flowing down
Someone left the yellowcake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Oh, no
No, no
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!*


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

sparky said:


> > What that there was yellow cake in Iraq?
> > where in the hell do you think it came from?
> > did you read the wikileak link?
> > you are only making it worse for yourself
> ...



not sure what all of that means
congress as I recall made no mention of Yellow cake
there mandate was to do with the UN and WMDs
clearly with over 500 munitions found after we invaded that met the criteria of WMDs that Saddam was to have done away with met the senates mandate
I may be taking you to serious
its all good


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 3, 2011)

I'm sure if the Iraq War had turned out to be a huge success, all we'd hear from tea party/neo cons is all about how the democrats tried to keep us from getting involved. Again, starting an uneccessary war is one of the worst things humans can do. There's a darn good reason that repubs WANT to share the "spoils" of THIER effort in Iraq so badly. What pisses me off is Obama not getting us out of there a long time ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2011)

JRK has a fail in this OP, period.


----------



## kaz (Sep 3, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



You didn't read my post, did you?


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 3, 2011)

kaz said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes, I did. There are even more eloquent neo cons than you making all kinds of excuses about the disaster of going into Iraq!  Be proud of the war YOU REPUBS started!


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> I'm sure if the Iraq War had turned out to be a huge success, all we'd hear from tea party/neo cons is all about how the democrats tried to keep us from getting involved. Again, starting an uneccessary war is one of the worst things humans can do. There's a darn good reason that repubs WANT to share the "spoils" of THIER effort in Iraq so badly. What pisses me off is Obama not getting us out of there a long time ago.



To start with GWB got us out of Iraq in 2008
U.S.

And i wonder what is suppose to be said about Iraq
we did what we went to do, how do you call that a failure?
there has been so much hate from the left with this event every one is tired of hearing it. ow can you celebrate a victory of this nature when everytime you bring it up people like that are right here on this board go ape shit


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> What that there was yellow cake in Iraq?
> where in the hell do you think it came from?
> did you read the wikileak link?
> you are only making it worse for yourself



You didn't read the information in the link.  The yellow cake further debunks your argument.  

 

You really should look into it.  



> and you have destoroyed nothing kid



All of your points have been debunked and rebutted more than once.  That you chose to ignore facts is of no consequence to me.

Whenever you're ready to directly address even one of my rebuttals, I'll be ready to answer but until then, you lose.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> there mandate was to do with the UN and WMDs



Bush kicked the inspectors out before they finished.

Are you trying to say that he didn't?


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



I dont know how old you are
the vote in congress had 29 Dems voted for it out of 50
besides
Saddam does the right thing from 1991 thru 2003
there is not war

The liberal will never understand the concept of root cause


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > there mandate was to do with the UN and WMDs
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you keep saying that
GWB kicked no-one out 
they knew the wrath of US military was coming
what does that have to do with Saddam not doing what he was suppose to do?
You keep saying that like it had something to do with there mision failed

let me try this again
there mission would have not failed if saddam does the right thig

do you think the oil and kickbacks the UN was getting had anything to do with any of this?

Sevan, along with UN Deputy Secretary-General, Louise Frechette, rejected any such investigation, claiming that it would be too expensive to be worthwhile. Sevan ordered the shredding of years' worth of documents concerning the programme.[9]

In response to these criticisms, and to evidence acquired after the United States invasion of Iraq, UN Secretary-General accusations were made that skimmed profits were being used to buy influence at the UN and with Kofi Annan himself.

According to an interim report released on February 3, 2005 by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker's commission (see #Investigations below), much of the food aid supplied under the programme "was unfit for human consumption". The report concluded that Sevan had accepted nearly $150,000 in bribes over the course of the programme, and in 2005 he was suspended from his position at the United Nations as a result of the investigation of fraud in the programme.[10]

You have defended these same people and atatacked our president and yet thet truth tells a different story

Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

> you keep saying that
> GWB kicked no-one out
> they knew the wrath of US military was coming
> what does that have to do with Saddam not doing what he was suppose to do?
> You keep saying that like it had something to do with there mision failed



Your just kidding right?


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > you keep saying that
> > GWB kicked no-one out
> > they knew the wrath of US military was coming
> > what does that have to do with Saddam not doing what he was suppose to do?
> ...



there is nothing about these events I would kid about
and as far as the yellow cake goes, what country was this stuff found in?
you keep trying to attack me and ignore the information
its all a liberal knows how to do

Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents." 

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk." 

Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"! 

The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush - Larry Elder - Townhall Conservative


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK has a fail in this OP, period.



Yes he has.


----------



## JRK (Sep 3, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK has a fail in this OP, period.
> ...



Jake is made the ignore list
I am not sure why anyone would claim this thread was a failure
but if you feel so thats fine with me
 we both know the truth


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2011)

Yes, that your OP is fail, JRK.


----------



## georgephillip (Sep 4, 2011)

deepthunk said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


*"Prior to 2002*, the Security Council had passed *16 resolutions on Iraq*. 

"In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the '*eighteenth resolution*' and others called the '*second resolution.*' 

"This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.

"Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. 

"Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, *it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Councilthe US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria*well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes."

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Iraq has never directly attacked the US there was neither a legitimate excuse for invasion based upon individual or collective self-defense nor any Security Council resolution specifically authorizing an attack on Iraq.

War is a racket and Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Condi, et al, have all resumed reaping profits from wars they lied into existence. They should all draw their last breath in supermax.


----------



## georgephillip (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


*Pray for Perry.*
He's next.

*"Ramzi Yousef sent a letter to the New York Times* after bombing the WTC which spelled out the motive: 'We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. 

"This action was done in response for the *American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."* 

Why do you ignore the millions of innocent humans murdered by the US military since the end of WWII? The actions of psychopaths like Yousef are in direct response to the crimes of mass killers like Kennedy, Carter and Clinton, Bush, Cheney and Obama.

Ramzi Yousef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




funny, I dont know old you are either. But then again, I dont care too much anyway.

root cause? ha ha. take credit for the war you guys started. you can name dems all day that voted for it. You seem to think I am a democrat or something. But I do know who dragged this country in iraq. And I HAVE been against it from the beginning! and you know what that makes me? RIGHT!

Being a DAD, I always taught my kids to be honest and stop with the excuse making. The way you neo cons characterize the WAR YOU STARTED shows me a desperate group of people running away from something they started and blaming everyone else! excuses abound! Deflections! Unfortunately for you, I DO REMEMBER Bush staring America in the eye at his State of the Union Adress and LYING to me and the rest of America! OWN UP TO IT, MAN!


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



Own up to what?
excuses?
kids?
I have presented of factual history of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq. At no time have I stated that people who are against the war are bad people or there wrong. The purpose of this thread iwas simple, and it was so simple that its scary
Your opinion on those evens are yours to keep. To protray those events in a in-accurate way and to do harm to the sacrifices those kids made to make this event a success is not

1) Saddam and his his weapons are gone
2) from that a republic in the middle east is born

Lies? what lies?
chill out


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> deepthunk said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The 1993 WTC bombing was done with an Iraqi at the helm

The Un does not supercede the US senate when it comes to defending this country. Never has, never will
They were given years to clean uo that mess


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:
			
		

> You didn't read my post, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No you didn't dumb ass.

Neocon?  I'm not a Republican, I'm against the wars and I'm against government spending.  On the other hand you are a clueless moron.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey! this a fun forum where we can call each other names like clueless morons!

What would happen if I called you a clueless moron FIRST, before you got that amazingly mature insult in? Would I win the debate then?


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Well, since your opinon is so factual I wave my white flag!!!! ha ha hee hee!


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You called me a Repub and a neocon and blamed me for the war for a post I wrote saying I was against the war, and you're complaining about the level of discourse?  You're an idiotic ass hole who doesn't read posts before you respond to them.  There was already no level of discourse so I decided to have fun.  You're not that either.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To start with to the both of you, the war in Iraq is over, we won

I am against foolish spending also. 
from this voctory we have saved billions that makes no headlines
for one
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US pulls out of Saudi Arabia
in addition the failed job stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq
we got a return on the war
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | FoxNews.com


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



so I've called you a neo con and a repub and you've called me a clueless moron and an  idiotic asshole! Now that's some REAL FUN right there!!!

and, Yes, I blamed YOU, and ONLY YOU for the war!!!!!! hahahahahha!!!! I love politics!


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Since I am an isolationist all I know is we need to get out of the Middle East, Period.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



you have not kept up with this thread, thats obvious
The US senate voting in favor of removing Saddam from power with force in 2002 is not an opinion
Blix speech 1-27-2003 is not an opinion
The DOD providing proof that there was WMDs that remained in Iraq in 2006 is not an opion
flying 30+ loads of "yeloow cake" out of Iraq in 2008 is not an opinion
Saddams own people hanging him is not an opinion
62% of the Iraqi people voting in the election in the year of our lord 2010 is not an opinion

still thik this is funny?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


And destroy what evidence of wrongdoing was done our friends, relatives, and loved ones in NYC on 9/11/2001, plus risk a reattack if we are perceived as weak? I hope you rethink your position, unless you are a conscientious objector and cannot.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Saddam gave us no choice and the one thing Obama has done that I have supported was to finish the job
iraq was done when he took office
but he has kept the heat on those who wnat to harm us (the troops have )


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

The premise for going to war, let alone the war itself, was a failure. We aren't any safer today than we were before the invasion, and even if the only guideline you're using for victory is the fact that we've propped up a representative government still in it's infancy, it's still a failure. Nation-building isn't a justified pretext for war, and if it was we would have been too preoccupied in any other number of countries that could use it, but are in reality generally ignored by the US. It's easy to sit here in hindsight and cherry pick what little good it has produced as the ends to try to justify the means...but for every good development that has occurred since April of 2003 there are 5 or more bad ones. 

We messed up on that one, and if we were a smart nation we'd learn from it and move on instead of constantly searching for validation when none is due.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



If more folks were like me, we wouldnt of ever been stuck there in the first place!


you can have iraq. glad you're enjoying our efforts and think it's all hunky dory we invaded them! Yay for america!


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



well, this is startling clear and concise!


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> If more folks were like me, we wouldnt of ever been stuck there in the first place!



How so?  You're a neocon.  Thanks for getting us stuck in the quagmire over there, Repub.  This is your fault.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > If more folks were like me, we wouldnt of ever been stuck there in the first place!
> ...



Oh! Must be opposite day!
Must give you a headache trying to judge and label everyone around you. what if they dont fit your little stereotypes? does your brain explode???


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

bobcollum said:


> The premise for going to war, let alone the war itself, was a failure. We aren't any safer today than we were before the invasion, and even if the only guideline you're using for victory is the fact that we've propped up a representative government still in it's infancy, it's still a failure. Nation-building isn't a justified pretext for war, and if it was we would have been too preoccupied in any other number of countries that could use it, but are in reality generally ignored by the US. It's easy to sit here in hindsight and cherry pick what little good it has produced as the ends to try to justify the means...but for every good development that has occurred since April of 2003 there are 5 or more bad ones.
> 
> We messed up on that one, and if we were a smart nation we'd learn from it and move on instead of constantly searching for validation when none is due.



all is opinion
the pretext was WMDS and yellow xake
both were there
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Media Slow To Show WikiLeaks Justified Iraq War - HUMAN EVENTS
and as far as nation building, removing Saddam is not nation building?
if you say so


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > If more folks were like me, we wouldnt of ever been stuck there in the first place!
> ...



the war is over
weapons are gone
yellow cake is gone
nation is growing with 62% of the people voting in there last election

Not exactly a quagmire


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



It's opposite day?  What are you 8?

Hmmm, let's see.  No it's not. you're still dumb as a brick.

But seriously, you got us into this war, neocon, how can you justify that?  You want to invade Iran next, don't you?


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



A Grand Old Success! YAY!!!!!!


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Dude! I already invaded iran years ago!!! Didnt you read about it? I lost, unfortunately, as my calvary got lost behind enemy lines, and I didnt have my eyes and ears. oh...wait!!! was that the civil war and gettysburg? I am SO CONFUSED!!!!!


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



We solved a problem for an ungrateful world that kicks the chair from under us every chance they get and made ourselves the target of terror.  Our troops are still propping up despotic regimes and are in territory that's not ours as targets.  And our government is artificially holding down gas prices just increasing our dependency on it and need to get deeper in problems that aren't ours.  Quagmire is exactly what it is.

But as for the post, I'm mocking Kevin because he's calling me a neocon, repub and I'm responsible for the war.  He really is dumb even for a liberal.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



awww shucks...my ears are burning!


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



our troops will be gone in 5 months, they may leave 10,000
holding down gas?
gas has little to do with Iraq and alot to do with refinaries being built in the same place where there refining oil at the same time
alot to do with the admin shutting down off shore drilling
allot to do with pipelines that need to be built, not being allowed to be built, wjich would open up millions of jobs extracting oil shale we are finding every where

How is the govt holding down gas prices?
 with that little puddle that came from the reserve?
really?

do your DD please before you vote again


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > The premise for going to war, let alone the war itself, was a failure. We aren't any safer today than we were before the invasion, and even if the only guideline you're using for victory is the fact that we've propped up a representative government still in it's infancy, it's still a failure. Nation-building isn't a justified pretext for war, and if it was we would have been too preoccupied in any other number of countries that could use it, but are in reality generally ignored by the US. It's easy to sit here in hindsight and cherry pick what little good it has produced as the ends to try to justify the means...but for every good development that has occurred since April of 2003 there are 5 or more bad ones.
> ...



I don't doubt that they found mustard and sarin gas, it's well known and undisputed that he used it against the northern Kurds. The second example given referring to the yellow cake was stockpiled (by UN inspectors) after an Israeli air strike of a reactor project in 1981, so he didn't get it from Niger, therefore negating any accusations of Iraq trying to progress with a nuclear program, or being any direct threat to US security. Furthermore and maybe more importantly, why is it that if there was this solid evidence of justification for the war, none of the Republicans stood up and screamed this while they were getting thrown out of Congress and eventually the White House...for sending us to a war that everyone thought was unjustified?

Nation building and propping up a pro-US government is exactly what the war was about, I don't know how you concluded that I thought anything else.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

bobcollum said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



no-one here claimed the yellow cake was from any where
stockpiled by the UN?
It appears that when George W. Bush, the CIA, and Tony Blair said that Saddam Hussein had yellowcake uranium, which was a violation of the UN resolution after the Gulf War, and one of the reasons why the USA and UK invaded Iraq to start the war, they were speaking the truth. 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium was found recently in Iraq, that Saddam had hidden for over five years from UN weapons inspectors, and sold to Canada recently. Reported by Brain Murphy of the Associated press at ABC News. Yahoo has a copy of the story at their news site as well.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609


And as far as the gas? first what we found
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
wjats worse is what Saddam hus self stated he had we have never found
This quotr is from the Un and is the rvrnt that triggered the invasion

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

now for anthrax and other nasty stuff
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
UNMOVIC - [ Selected Security Council Briefings ]
there
Please in the future do your DD
you opinion is just that, your opinion, I respect that
the facts state other wise
this event has evolved, the press and the liberal did not evolve with it


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It wasn't a threat to our security. Opinion? Probably, but it can just as easily be said that assuming they were a threat because of the presence of weapons is just as much of an opinion. I haven't seen anything here that proves we were in danger and I haven't seen anything post-major operations that lead me to believe the terror threat in general has diminished.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

bobcollum said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > bobcollum said:
> ...



Do you think those we were killing in Iraq were Iraqis?
do you think this world is not safer without Saddam?
do you really feel that a country that had a 62% voter turn-out in there last election that had saddam Hussien running the show wit no elections 10 years ago is no better for the world?
maybe not
but those are the evenets as they have evolved
I wish 9-11 had never happened
I pray that saddam had done the right thing as well as the UN (WITHOUT THE KICKBACKS)


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

jrk said:
			
		

> Do you think those we were killing in Iraq were Iraqis?



Many Iraqis were killed, yes.



			
				jrk said:
			
		

> do you think this world is not safer without Saddam?



I really don't think it makes much difference, honestly.



			
				jrk said:
			
		

> do you really feel that a country that had a 62% voter turn-out in there last election that had saddam Hussien running the show wit no elections 10 years ago is no better for the world?



It's better for Iraq, I suppose. The jury is still out on that one.



			
				jrk said:
			
		

> maybe not
> but those are the evenets as they have evolved



Agreed, but it's what it took to get there that troubles me so much.



			
				jrk said:
			
		

> I wish 9-11 had never happened



Me too, but I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.



			
				jrk said:
			
		

> I pray that saddam had done the right thing as well as the UN (WITHOUT THE KICKBACKS)



We should have spent more time inspecting, but I also think there was little to no threat to our security, so I'd assume if you thought there was than delaying the invasion would be costly.

I'd also appreciate it if you would comment on my question, which I feel is pretty valid: 



			
				bobcollum said:
			
		

> why is it that if there was this solid evidence of justification for the war, none of the Republicans stood up and screamed this while they were getting thrown out of Congress and eventually the White House...for sending us to a war that everyone thought was unjustified?


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

bobcollum said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was so much then we did not know. As is the fact there is allot of bad stuff still missing
you should read this link
UNMOVIC - [ Selected Security Council Briefings ]
allot of tose we fought after we invaded  were not iraqis
The UN was getting kick backs on the oil for food,
it was a mess and after 9-11 the world changed, Saddam did not change with it

Was Saddam a threat?
not really, but the stuff he had stock piled, the location of the country as well as the oil reserves it was in our best interest after 9-11 to remove Saddam, stabalize the country, we waited 18 months for this situation to become fluid after 9-11

Saddam had his chance


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

jrk said:
			
		

> Was Saddam a threat?
> not really, but the stuff he had stock piled, the location of the country as well as the oil reserves it was in our best interest after 9-11 to remove Saddam, stabalize the country, we waited 18 months for this situation to become fluid after 9-11
> Saddam had his chance



This is the big problem, the Governments interests aren't the interests of many US citizens. We have too much interest vested in that area, it dictates what we do and has been a big source of the tensions between the people of the Middle East and the West. All of this meddling is causing more trouble than it's worth because nation building doesn't work.


----------



## JRK (Sep 4, 2011)

bobcollum said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




62% Of the Iraqi people voted in the last election. It was a democracy until 1959 (I think the year is correct)
the tension?
the first WTC bombing was done by a Iraqi citizen
As I have stated, Saddam had a chance to do the right thing many years

Any way I respect your opinion, there comes a time when people need to agree to dis agree


----------



## bobcollum (Sep 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Any way I respect your opinion, there comes a time when people need to agree to dis agree



Agreed. You're the first person here that I've disagreed with that hasn't been an offensive name-calling crybaby, so kudos to you for that.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 4, 2011)

> that Saddam had hidden for over five years from UN weapons inspectors



You really need to read up on the yellow cake you keep talking about.

The UN knew it was there.  They found, labeled and packaged it for storage a long time before Bush's invasion.  It was all accounted for and no additional yellow cake was found after Bush invaded.

In fact, had Bush allowed the UN inspector&#8217;s time to finish their inspection they would have also found the small amount of unusable mustard and Sarin gas to which you keep referring.

You should read more JRK.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 4, 2011)

Yellowcake Uranium Found In Iraq, Bush Was Right! Well, Not So Much | Crooks and Liars



> If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) _*was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law*_.
> 
> I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as "proof" that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.



You reveal how dishonest you are when you claim the yellow cake as vindication.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 4, 2011)

U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq - CBS News



> Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. _*There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.*_


----------



## idb (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> bobcollum said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Ha!
In 2002 Saddam won 100% of the votes in a free and fair election, and in the previous election he won 99.96%.
I'd say that was a ringing endorsement...wouldn't you?

The US wiped out the what must surely have been the world's most popular government.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > that Saddam had hidden for over five years from UN weapons inspectors
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this the same CBS that allowed forged documents that was lies about GWB time in the natinal gaurd?
That annonced Gore had won florida will 1000s waited in line to vote

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had 
stockpile None; programme was infiltrated, abandoned, destroyed by Israel and Iran in 1989. Officially program ended in 1990. 

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig


The TRUE story of the WMDs in Iraq will not be know for some time, but more and more information is coming out pointing that "something" was there...

Here is some of that information:

Iraqi "yellow cake" transferred:

USATODAY.com - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

Quote: "The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said." 

...material that could have been used to make dirty bombs...well, if that is not materials for a form of WMDs then I do not know what is kids!...lol...!

Now that was in 2004, here is more today, in 2008:

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

...and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

*The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

ALL those that yell "there were no WMD in Iraq", and that therefore the invasion was illegal of a crime etc are just WRONG! 

This nuclear material was hidden from the UN inspectors, a clear violation of the UN sanctions and restrictions! ...never mind in addition to the many other things we also found after the invasion, example:

forbidden Iraqi Air Force planes buried in the sand at The al Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad in Iraq (posted photos:

Quote:" What military search teams eventually found at al Taqqadum, in July 2003: a reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil and covered with camouflage netting. According to the Pentagon, at least one of the MiG-25s was found because searchers spotted its twin tail fins protruding from the sand. Some of the planes had been wrapped in plastic sheeting to protect their electronics and machinery from the sand (and some had had their wings removed), but others were interred with little or no protection from the sand or the elements. The recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the aircraft."
(press release by Department of Defense, 2003)

more WMD evidence:

" Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered",

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered

Quote: "BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad."

...more evidence that Iraqi forces under Saddam had WMD expertise, and even after the fall of their leader in 2003 the remaining dismembered Baathists were trying to use that knowlwedge and some leftover WMD materials to use against our forces!

more evidence:

Chemical weapon antidotes found in Iraqi base:

Chemical weapon antidotes found in Iraqi base - 26 March 2003 - New Scientist

Quote: "US Marines say they have discovered drugs used by soldiers to counter chemical weapons and 3000 chemical protection suits at a hospital used by Iraqi forces in the town of An Nasariyah. The discovery has added to fears that Iraq might use chemical weapons against invading British and US troops.

In particular, General Vincent Brooks, at US Central Command in Doha, Qatar, said on Wednesday that Marines had confiscated "nerve agent antidote auto-injectors" at the hospital."

This reminds me of a blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

...same thing here, Saddam forces did not have anti-chemical agent drugs unless they expected chemical weapons (again WMDs) to be used...!

and the United States does not use WMDs, it is a matter of national policy, as were Saddam HAD... against Iran, and its own people, the Kurds!


..and more evidence:

UK Troops Say They Find More Iraqi Chemical Suits

UK Troops Say They Find More Iraqi Chemical Suits

Quote: "British troops have found a stash of Iraqi equipment designed to protect soldiers from chemical attack, including protective suits, training materials and nerve gas antidote. 

Sunday's discovery at an ordinance facility south of Basra did not appear to include any actual weapons of mass destruction -- the elusive "smoking gun" that Washington and London hope will eventually justify their invasion of Iraq. 

But troops did find items including a Geiger counter, gas masks and nerve gas simulators, which British officers said indicated that Iraqi troops were being trained to deal with the possibility of chemical or nuclear warfare."

...again my blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

WMD gear, gas masks, WMD warfare TRAINING simulators...!


...more, this evidence:

even a CNN report in 2003...

"Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard"

Redirect Notice

Quote: "(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned. 

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel."

...again my blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

it is clear Saddam was in violation of UN sanctions again and again... and again, and just waiting for the UN to give up so he could get "back to business"...!

There are reports that he even did have WMDs, but as we prepared for our final assault he decided to send the WMD stockpile in a hurry to his Baath Party pals in Syria...:

"Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says"

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

Quote: "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's 

You keep it up, your doing a better job than I can


----------



## Akimbot (Sep 5, 2011)

The US hasn't even won that war yet. It's been what, 9 years? So much for America being a superpower, you can't even take Iraq.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

Akimbot said:


> The US hasn't even won that war yet. It's been what, 9 years? So much for America being a superpower, you can't even take Iraq.



the war is over
Saddam is gone
weapons are gone
62% of the iraqi population voted in the last election
in 5 mnths we will have only 10,000 troops left if any


----------



## Akimbot (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Akimbot said:
> 
> 
> > The US hasn't even won that war yet. It's been what, 9 years? So much for America being a superpower, you can't even take Iraq.
> ...



Open your eyes, war is not over. Americans are still dying there. 
There never were any WMD, and Saddam is gone, boo fucking hoo. Life was better under Saddam anyways. And 99% of the people voted.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

Akimbot said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Akimbot said:
> ...



in iraq?
not for some time
how many were murdered in the US last night
as far as WMDs go

The TRUE story of the WMDs in Iraq will not be know for some time, but more and more information is coming out pointing that "something" was there...

Here is some of that information:

Iraqi "yellow cake" transferred:

USATODAY.com - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

Quote: "The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said." 

...material that could have been used to make dirty bombs...well, if that is not materials for a form of WMDs then I do not know what is kids!...lol...!

Now that was in 2004, here is more today, in 2008:

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

...and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

ALL those that yell "there were no WMD in Iraq", and that therefore the invasion was illegal of a crime etc are just WRONG! 

This nuclear material was hidden from the UN inspectors, a clear violation of the UN sanctions and restrictions! ...never mind in addition to the many other things we also found after the invasion, example:

forbidden Iraqi Air Force planes buried in the sand at The al Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad in Iraq (posted photos:

Quote:" What military search teams eventually found at al Taqqadum, in July 2003: a reported 30 to 40 planes, including several MiG-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets, buried more than 10 feet beneath tons of soil and covered with camouflage netting. According to the Pentagon, at least one of the MiG-25s was found because searchers spotted its twin tail fins protruding from the sand. Some of the planes had been wrapped in plastic sheeting to protect their electronics and machinery from the sand (and some had had their wings removed), but others were interred with little or no protection from the sand or the elements. The recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the aircraft."
(press release by Department of Defense, 2003)

more WMD evidence:

" Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered",

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered

Quote: "BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.

Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad."

...more evidence that Iraqi forces under Saddam had WMD expertise, and even after the fall of their leader in 2003 the remaining dismembered Baathists were trying to use that knowlwedge and some leftover WMD materials to use against our forces!

more evidence:

Chemical weapon antidotes found in Iraqi base:

Chemical weapon antidotes found in Iraqi base - 26 March 2003 - New Scientist

Quote: "US Marines say they have discovered drugs used by soldiers to counter chemical weapons and 3000 chemical protection suits at a hospital used by Iraqi forces in the town of An Nasariyah. The discovery has added to fears that Iraq might use chemical weapons against invading British and US troops.

In particular, General Vincent Brooks, at US Central Command in Doha, Qatar, said on Wednesday that Marines had confiscated "nerve agent antidote auto-injectors" at the hospital."

This reminds me of a blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

...same thing here, Saddam forces did not have anti-chemical agent drugs unless they expected chemical weapons (again WMDs) to be used...!

and the United States does not use WMDs, it is a matter of national policy, as were Saddam HAD... against Iran, and its own people, the Kurds!


..and more evidence:

UK Troops Say They Find More Iraqi Chemical Suits

UK Troops Say They Find More Iraqi Chemical Suits

Quote: "British troops have found a stash of Iraqi equipment designed to protect soldiers from chemical attack, including protective suits, training materials and nerve gas antidote. 

Sunday's discovery at an ordinance facility south of Basra did not appear to include any actual weapons of mass destruction -- the elusive "smoking gun" that Washington and London hope will eventually justify their invasion of Iraq. 

But troops did find items including a Geiger counter, gas masks and nerve gas simulators, which British officers said indicated that Iraqi troops were being trained to deal with the possibility of chemical or nuclear warfare."

...again my blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

WMD gear, gas masks, WMD warfare TRAINING simulators...!


...more, this evidence:

even a CNN report in 2003...

"Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard"

Redirect Notice

Quote: "(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned. 

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel."

...again my blunt phrase: "you don't put a condom on unless you are going to screw, do you?"

it is clear Saddam was in violation of UN sanctions again and again... and again, and just waiting for the UN to give up so he could get "back to business"...!

There are reports that he even did have WMDs, but as we prepared for our final assault he decided to send the WMD stockpile in a hurry to his Baath Party pals in Syria...:

"Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says"

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

Quote: "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed."

Saddam knew we were coming, there are reports that he even got details of the American invasion from the Russians:

"Iraq Archive Document Alleges Russian Official Described Locations, Troops, Tanks and Other Forces Before Operation Iraqi Freedom Began" ABC news.

Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? - ABC News

Saddam then knew we were coming, he knew that not in a million years was it possible for him and his forces to stop us, and that he was going to loose badly, so instead of been caught "red handed" with WMDs he decided to pull the oldest trick in the book...pass the weapons to a "stacher" for safe keeping (Syria) so then he would look "clean" of WMDs after the invasion in the eyes of the world....oldest trick in the book.

Hey... anyone heared of this: drug dealer knows cops are coming, he passes drugs to pal near by, cops arrive, he gets frisked and found "clean", cops leave, he gets drugs back from staching pal and is back in business...oldest trick in the book kids!

same thing here!

All of this point to a more troubling thing, and that is that if all those WMDs got away, those WMDs can now be in the hands of other terrorist states and/or groups, and the administration knows this, but prefers to take "a hit" by been seen as having been "wrong" in the intelligence assesment of Iraq having WMDs, rather than having been right all along on Saddam having WMDs, but having really screwed up in losing the opportunity to capture those weapons in Iraq by not invading with enough forces (also reason for the mess after the invasion), and now those weapons are in the hands of many of our enemies.

And this is possibly the real truth of the Iraq WMDs story. 

My scenario: 

Saddam had WMDs', he saw us coming, the Russians even gave him intel on how and were we were going to come in from, he realized he could not stop us, so he decided to get rid of the weapons until a later time by passing them to the guys next door in Syria; we came in too late, too slow to catch the WMDs weapons been moved, Bush realized that he had just missed the WMDs and that it was too late for him to go after them them in Syria (never mind that now he, Bush, was bogged down in a guerrilla war in Iraq with no spare troops to do anything else anywhere else, and thus decided to take the hit and look incompetent regarding intel on the WMDs instead of looking incompetent on not been able to get the existing WMDs.


As for the evidence..., the "yellow cake", the buried weapons, the WMDs antidotes, the WMDs protective gear, the WMDs Training gear, etc etc etc, is clear evidence that he was NOT an innocent victim in this war, and who knows what else he had, what else he buried in those immense sand dunes, or what else he sent to Syria...


The whole story will not be know for a long time, but as evidence shows he was guilty as charge, and thus the 2003 Invasion was justified...problem was Bush/Rumsfeld 

Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig

being against the war is your right
changing history to support is not


----------



## traveler52 (Sep 5, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



There was no "*Root Cause*".  Saddam WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001!!!

There no*Weapons of Mass Destruction* (W.M.D.). W.M.D. = LIE.

The were no mobile Biological or Chemical Labs. Biological and Chemical Labs = LIE.

There was no Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapons Program = LIE.

There was no Attempt To Purchase "Yellow Cake Uranium" from Niger.  Attempt To Purchase "Yellow Cake Uranium" = LIE.

The shrub promised Congress to return to the U.N. For Another Vote on Use of Force.
Promise to Congress = LIE.

The Illegal and Constitutional Invasion of Iraq had no Moral or Legal Standing.  

The shrub stated before his election he wanted to Invade Iraq.

The shrub and dead-eye dick(less) both admitted to authorizing the use of Water Boarding, Water Boarding under International Law is Torture, and Torture Under International Law is a War Crime.

A war based on lies, half-truths, deception, and mis-direction cannot be considered a success.

U.S. Troops Maimed in Battle were warehouse in filthy, mold covered, rodent infested rooms, and charged for their meals.

Don't talk about success in Iraq.  

Iraq should never have happened.

Thousands of U.S. Soldiers killed.

Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi Men, Women and Children (Including all those "Un-Born" babies the RW rants about because they hate abortion.  No "Right To Life" for un-born Iraqi babies).

The RW wanted the lies.

The RW needed the lies.

The RW still believes the lies.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

traveler52 said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



what lies?
Current stockpile None; programme was infiltrated, abandoned, destroyed by Israel and Iran in 1989. Officially program ended in 1990. 
yellow cake did exist and was found after the invasion 
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
no record of it prior to 3/2003

The TRUE story of the WMDs in Iraq will not be know for some time, but more and more information is coming out pointing that "something" was there...

Here is some of that information:

Iraqi "yellow cake" transferred:

USATODAY.com - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

Quote: "The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said." 

...material that could have been used to make dirty bombs...well, if that is not materials for a form of WMDs then I do not know what is kids!...lol...!

Now that was in 2004, here is more today, in 2008:

AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada

...and

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig

lets add this to the mix

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. 

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs. 

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. 

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s. 

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic. 

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal." 

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone." 

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons." 

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform. 

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection. 

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report. 

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning. 

Biographies:
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, USA

Related Sites:
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK is forging a mistruth, but he has failed at it here.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 5, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK is forging a mistruth, but he has failed at it here.



Starting with the fact that Dirty Bombs aren't WMD's, and that Uranium has to be enriched to 90% to be weapons grade.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK demonstrates that neoconservatism is a mental disease with international war crimes potential.


----------



## kaz (Sep 5, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > Since I am an isolationist all I know is we need to get out of the Middle East, Period.
> ...



I supported attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban because they attacked the US.  However:

1)  Building a nation in Afghanistan was just foolish and has us stuck there either to give up like other failures to do the same including the British (4 times) and Russians or stay there for decades.

2)  Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the US.

3)  The Middle East isn't our problem and shouldn't be.  If you walk through Harlem with cash sticking out of your pocket at night, you are going to be robbed.  That doesn't excuse the robber and if caught they should be prosecuted.  But isn't it more wise to not do that in the first place?  I'm not saying this in the Democratic self serving way because terrorists are terrorists, but why do we have to make them all our enemy by being there in the first place?


----------



## kaz (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> our troops will be gone in 5 months


They will still be across the Middle East.  I am saying we should not be there at all, not just in Iraq.  And as you pointed out we won't even be "out" of Iraq.



JRK said:


> they may leave 10,000
> holding down gas? gas has little to do with Iraq and alot to do with refinaries being built in the same place where there refining oil at the same time
> alot to do with the admin shutting down off shore drilling
> allot to do with pipelines that need to be built, not being allowed to be built, wjich would open up millions of jobs extracting oil shale we are finding every where
> ...


We are in Iraq because they supported terrorism and were a threat to us.  They were a threat because we are in the Middle East.  We are in the Middle East to secure oil supplies.  We are not in places like Africa or other similar spots in the world that don't have oil.

I am not saying this in a Democratic brain dead party way of opposing all energy plans and then screaming people can't afford it and oil companies are greedy when prices go up.  I want to open Alaska and off shore and shale in the US, I want to build refineries in the US, I want to eliminate local blends and standardize formulas, I want to allow dramatic Nuclear Power expansion.  And then I am willing to let prices rise as we can't meet energy needs to force changes in technology and behavior.

Think about what's happening now.  By having the military secure oil sources, oil prices are artificially low.  That means less is invested in technology for more efficient oil use and alternative energy because it has to compete with artificially low prices.  However, we are paying for the oil through our taxes to fund the military excursions.  However, since prices at the pump are artificially low people keep using more, which means we have to spend more in our other taxes to support more military.  It's a losing proposition.



JRK said:


> do your DD please before you vote again



You tell me to do my due diligence, but you need to do it my friend, and this post is an excellent place to start.  Everything I told you here is logic and known facts, but if you want credentials then I spent a large portion of my career in GE Power in management at GE Energy and GE Nuclear Power.


----------



## kaz (Sep 5, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK demonstrates that neoconservatism is a mental disease with international war crimes potential.



He's not advocating anything that Obama hasn't done.  Are you saying Obama has a "mental disease with international war crimes potential" or is this yet another of your flagrant it's OK when the left does it standards?


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

Photonic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK is forging a mistruth, but he has failed at it here.
> ...



oh boy you guys have become desperate to say the least
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Eactly what is it out of all of the items we have found sense invading is it that you people want?
dis agreeing with what this country decided to do in 2002 via the US congress is your right, mis representing the past is not


----------



## Akimbot (Sep 5, 2011)

Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > our troops will be gone in 5 months
> ...



working for GE makes you what?
one thing I can tell you it has done to you, denial

artificially low? is that a joke?
gas was less than 2.00 at the end of GWB admin
are you stating that puddle we used from the reserves made a difference?

who said the war in Iraq was about oil for this country?
in 2009 Iraq was # 12 supplying 3% of the worlds oil
List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what facts that dispute
congress approves 2002
Blix states there are 6500 munitions missing, 1000s of gallons of anthrax and other stuff 2003 and that Iraq has not yet accepted there fate
8 weeks later we invade
500 munitions are found that meet the WMD classification, DOD presents proof to congress 2006
2008, the yellow cake that never exisited is sent to Canada

those are the facts
its that simple
and you and your GE job did what to dis-prove these facts how?
good place to start?
this is the end, its this simple

There is nothing more to this and as far the number 10,000 One that is a Engineer with GE should figure out Iraqw was the place sense there is well over 1000 threads on this matter here-in

one more thing
i am an engineer also


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 5, 2011)

Saddam misted the Kurds with Axe Body Spray.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

Akimbot said:


> Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?



We invaded Iraq because Saddam had not adhered to Un resolutuion 1442
this was proved after the invasion when the yellow cake wass found and the 500 munitions as stated over and over here-in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

lets try this again for all of the engineers from GE that have joined us
I mean no dis respect tp you Kaz but to put that into this conversation as though your superior than those of us who support the actions we took in 2003 is so typical os a liiberal I do not know where to start

1) congress votes 77-23 to attack Saddam 
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

2) Blix makes his comments 1-27-2003
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

This was the straw that broke the camals back, notice there is no mention of the yellow cake being declared nor being found
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) DOD presents congress the proof needed to make this a legal war
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

4) 2008 the yellow cake that was found only adds to the reason


----------



## kaz (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> working for GE makes you what?
> one thing I can tell you it has done to you, denial
> 
> artificially low? is that a joke?
> ...


Absolutely oil is artificially low.  As I pointed out, we are paying large amounts for defense that are not in the oil prices.  Artificially low doesn't mean it's less then what you want to pay, artificially low means it's lower then a free market would price it.  When government is securing oil supplies, it increases supply which lowers price.  Basic economics.  And as always happens when government skews free markets, we pay for it in other ways, over and over and over....



JRK said:


> one more thing
> i am an engineer also


I am not an engineer.  I was in GE Management and managagement consulting for my career until I went entrepreneurial.  I now own and run two businesses.  Nothing I said was about engineering or technology, I was discussing the market dynamics.


----------



## kaz (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> lets try this again for all of the engineers from GE that have joined us
> I mean no dis respect tp you Kaz but to put that into this conversation as though your superior than those of us who support the actions we took in 2003 is so typical os a liiberal I do not know where to start


I'm a libertarian.  Liberals are advocating government solutions to energy and I'm advocating free market solutions.  In what possible way is that "liberal?"  Liberals always call me a Republican.  I'm not sure why telling you my background means I'm claiming to be "superior."  I thought I explained my views pretty well on their own.  I was telling you what my background is.

As for the rest, I already addressed it.  You are explaining why if we are in the Middle East we need to pursue the course we did.  I am advocating an actually different course.  Again unlike the left who advocate the same course only with themselves behind the steering wheel.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > working for GE makes you what?
> ...



10-4 
its all good to me
my issue with all of this is not your opinion, thats yours
I repsect that
my issue is the level of lying that took place that got Obama elected and congress in the mess it was in from 08-2010. The only way I know to prevent it is to put a stop to it thru the information hi-way


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 5, 2011)

Depends on how you perceive success & failure. I would bet the answers to this question will go along Party-Lines. The 'Get-Gaddafi' crowd will claim Iraq is a failure while the 'Get Hussein' crowd will probably claim it a success. If you were to ask the question 'Is the Libya War a success or failure?',i'm pretty sure the answers would work in a vice-versa fashion. The bottom line is that Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really do agree on much more than they like to admit. Gaddafi bad? Had to go. Hussein bad? Had to go. Which one was more "Evil"? You tell me.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 5, 2011)

You could argue getting rid of Saddam Hussein was much more important than getting rid of Gaddafi. Hussein did use WMD on people in the past. He also invaded other Nations in the past. There is no proof Gaddafi ever engaged in those actions. In fact he got a long quite well with his African neighbors. So i can see how some could argue getting rid of Hussein was a more credible action.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Depends on how you perceive success & failure. I would bet the answers to this question will go along Party-Lines. The 'Get-Gaddafi' crowd will claim Iraq is a failure while the 'Get Hussein' crowd will probably claim it a success. If you were to ask the question 'Is the Libya War a success or failure?',i'm pretty sure the answers would work in a vice-versa fashion. The bottom line is that Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really do agree on much more than they like to admit. Gaddafi bad? Had to go. Hussein bad? Had to go. Which one was more "Evil"? You tell me.



well things in Lybia are not loking good
My task is not to change ones mind, mine is to stopp all of the lying about so much. Obama has failed
the GOP lost much respect with all of the lying that has went on that now the truth is coming out for so much
this one to me is also personal
We had over 4000 kids who have gave there life for this mission
by choice they went there and done it, no one forced them too. They have done so much for this world, the middle east, Iraq, Afgan, and this country


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK demonstrates that neoconservatism is a mental disease with international war crimes potential.
> ...



Obama inherited the war crimes mess in Iraq and has cleared it up, is drawing down Afghanistan (a legal war), and has legally interjected into the Libyan mess.

Nope, no comparison.  The bushies are war criminals, Obama is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Akimbot said:
> 
> 
> > Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?
> ...



That invasion was an international crime, JRK.  The UN did not authorize the USA to do so under any UN resolution.  The second the US troops went to war, the war crimes clock started ticking, and it won't until the last Bush dies of old age, either in prison or unable to travel out of the USA.

No true blue red blood American supports your position.


----------



## georgephillip (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > deepthunk said:
> ...


The 2001 WTC bombings were orchestrated by 15 Saudis.

Their country has even more oil than Saddam's did.

The US Senate is bound by the same Constitution, laws and treaties (including the UN Charter) as the rest of America. 

Since the UN Charter authorizes only two scenarios for going to war, and since the sovereign state of Iraq never attacked the US nor did the US obtain Security Council authorization for an invasion of Iraq, every crime committed in Iraq since March 2003 is a war crime.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 5, 2011)

Was Gaddafi any more "Evil" than Saddam Hussein? We bombed the hell out of Libya without Congressional approval. That War was both unjust & unconstitutional. That's why i always say Socialists/Progressives and Neocons have much more in common than they would ever admit. All the Left cheerleading for killing Gaddafi really is pretty bizarre. Very hypocritical.


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



my friend you are without doubt lost
If you think for one minute that this country is going to defend its borders only when the UN says we can you are badly mistaken
No where in our constitution will you find "and if the UN approves"

Look I hate to say this, but are you nuts? 
The UN has nothing to do with how this country will ever defend it self


----------



## JRK (Sep 5, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



one more thing what the hell does oil have to do with it? (except the UN getting kick backs with the oil for food program)
and following your logic the forst WTC bombing was done by an Iraqi citizen


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Akimbot said:
> 
> 
> > Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?
> ...



Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian



> The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
> Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
> 
> He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."



For anyone who might still be following along.

Oh, and again, here's the yellowcake;

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq


Carry on...

Just a repost that debunks JRK (points that destroy his argument that he won't even acknowledge).


----------



## georgephillip (Sep 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


*What specific threat to the borders of this country did Iraq pose?*

You seem to be conveniently ignorant of this country's basic framework of law:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; *and all Treaties made*, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So in other words yes, it's "yet another of your flagrant it's OK when the left does it standards."  I already knew that, I just wanted to hear you say it.


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> That invasion was an international crime, JRK.  The UN did not authorize the USA to do so under any UN resolution



Yet another it's OK when the left does it standard.  What were the resolutions for the following:

- Obama attacks Libya
- Obama continues the war in Iraq continuing Bush's timeline
- Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan
- Clinton attacks Kosovo
- Clinton attacks Afghanistan
- Clinton invades northern Iraq
- Clinton creates No Fly zones over Iraq
- Clinton attacks the Sudan
- Clinton invades Haiti
- Clinton continues the war in Somalia

You got an excuse other then your normal it's different, those were Democrats?


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

The difference Starkey and why you are a fool is that I actually oppose most of those.  I do support attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda, they attacked us.  I don't give a crap about UN resolutions to defend ourselves.  But I actually oppose the rest of them as well as when Republicans do it.  You only oppose Democrats not being in the White House.  I have a conviction, you want more welfare.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > That invasion was an international crime, JRK.  The UN did not authorize the USA to do so under any UN resolution
> ...



Iraq was not legal, Libya is, and the UN and NATO and the EU were in agreement.  You have a problem with that?  Neoconservatism does not only result in warcrimes, it is a mental illness.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Once again, the Governement was not claiming Iraq was a threat because of: 

"_*The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.*_"

Nope, they were claiming Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling large quantities of new weapons grades material.  And was actively producing a atomic bomb.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Akimbot said:
> 
> 
> > Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?
> ...



The Yellow cake was aready known about pre invasion.  SCR 1441 did not contain any provision for military action even if the inspectors found an active program or were hindered in their inspections.  The only thing the SC agreed upon was to reconvine to decided what to do.  Nothing was found.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Iraq was not at our borders threatening an invasion, and they were not a significant threat to the worlds remaining super power.  Nor were they involved with the 9-11 attacks, both are pre-requisites for authorization for military force in the act passed by congress.  Granted either one was good enough but neither one was satisfied.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

> Quote: Originally Posted by JRK





> my friend you are without doubt lost
> If you think for one minute that this country is going to defend its borders only when the UN says we can you are badly mistaken
> No where in our constitution will you find "and if the UN approves"



Then why do you keep using the UN as justification?

Your circular arguments are fallacious and have been firmly debunked.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Photonic said:
> ...



What part of declare and destroy dont you get?
The resolution did not state "if its just mustard gas in a badly corroded missile do not worry about it"
Or if it is yellow cake uranium that needs some more work done to it, its ok'

Where in denial do you put that? at what level


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



NO THAT WAS NOT NOR DID HAVE ANY THING TO DO WITH A PRE INVASION
DO YOUR DD DAMN IT

THE VOTE
n a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

THE SPEECH
UN weapons inspectors criticise Iraq - 27 January 2003 - New Scientist
Both inspectors asked for more time. "We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon programme," said El-Baradei.

Blix, however, emphasised that while Iraq has been cooperating with the inspections process, *it has not provided enough "substantive" cooperation to allow the inspectors to resolve any of the unanswered questions about its chemical and biological weapons left over from previous inspections. "It is not enough just to open doors," he said.
*
As an example, Blix cited a document, f*ound in a military safe by a weapons inspector in 1998, that showed that Iraq had consumed 13,000 rockets armed with chemical weapons during its war with Iran in the 1980s, not 19,500 as it declared. That document was snatched back by Iraqi officials at the time.

It has now been handed back and, Blix reported, it confirms that 6500 chemical rockets are unaccounted for. They could contain 1000 tonnes of chemical agents - including the nerve agent VX, whose production, Blix said, Iraq has also not fully accounted for. Similarly, Iraq has provided no proof that it destroyed all 8500 litres of anthrax it says it made before 1991, or proved it did not make more.*

THE INVASION
3-2003

THE PROOF THAT IRAQ HAD NOT MEET THE UN MANDATE
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
MORE PROOF THAT PUT THAT WAS NOT NEEDED, BUT IS HUGE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

*The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

ALL those that yell "there were no WMD in Iraq", and that therefore the invasion was illegal of a crime etc are just WRONG! 

This nuclear material was hidden from the UN inspectors, a clear violation of the UN sanctions and restrictions! ...never mind in addition to the many other things we also found after the invasion, example:

forbidden Iraqi Air Force planes buried in the sand at The al Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad in Iraq (posted photos:


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by JRK
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NOTHING HAS BEEN DE BUNKED
HOW DO YOU DE BUNK A VOTE IN THE SENATE?
HOW DO YOU DE-BUNK A SPEECH MADE IN JAN OF 2003 BY HANS BLIX?
HOW DO YOU DE-BUNK THE 500 MUNITIONS FOUND THAT MET THE DEFICITION OF WMD?
HOW DO YOU DE-BUNK THE YELLOW CAKE FOUND AFTER THE INVASION?

HERE TRY
Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
UN weapons inspectors criticise Iraq - 27 January 2003 - New Scientist
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
YOU DEBUNK ANY OF THAT? THERE IT IS FOR YOU
SENATE VOTES
BLIX STATES IRAQ IS NOT COOPERATING AND HAS 1000S OF WMDS MISSING
WE INVADE 8 WEEKS LATER
DOD TELLS US SENATE, THEY LIED,, WE FOUND THEM, THEY ARE WMDS
WE FIND 550 METRIC TONS OF YELLOW CAKE
DEBUNK IT BUD OR SHUT UP
I AM TIRED OF YOUR LYING


----------



## LilOlLady (Sep 6, 2011)

*Iraq a Complete Failure for the United States*
By Amitabh Pal
August 27, 2010 

The United States is ending its combat mission in Iraq, leaving it in *a complete mess*. On virtually every count, *the country is in the doldrums*.
Iraq a Complete Failure for the United States | The Progressive
Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

*Am missing something here? *


*(4) Why the fuck are we still there?*


----------



## LilOlLady (Sep 6, 2011)

Was it worth the loss of 5,000 young men and women? Was it worth the death of over a million innocent Iraqi men, women and children? The distructions of a country?
Hell no. Saddam was an assect to us in the fight against terrorism. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before our invasion and occupation  be cause Saddam would not allow it.
We have killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in all his time in power.

You don't know what success means.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *Iraq a Complete Failure for the United States*
> By Amitabh Pal
> August 27, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by JRK
> ...



All of this and more has been clearly and soundly debunked, just reread some of the posts you've overlooked.  

You will find your answers if you look at instead of ignore the facts.

Here's an idea, why don't you try to address some of those points instead of repeating your debunked points?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

> Quote: Originally Posted by JRK





> Am missing something here?



Uhmmmm, yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK may not use the UN resolution as an excuse (it is not even a reason) for the invasion.

The USA had no legal authority to act for the UN concerning Iraq.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK, just read the information in this link and post on its content please.

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

I'm still waiting JRK.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



So yoUr STATING FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU Nic_Driver;4101248 HAS DE-BUNKED THOSE THREADS ABOVE?
THAT THE SENATE NEVER VOTED TO GIVE THE ADMIN PERMISSION TO ATTACK IF IRAQ FAILED TO MEET THE UN MANDATES SUCH AS 1442?
THAT VOTE NEVER TOOK PLACE? THEN PROVIDE A LINK TO PROVE IT

AND THAT BLIX NEVER MADE THESE STATEMENTS?
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE THE DOD NEVER WENT BEFORE CONGRESS WITH THIS?
he 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"T*hese are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee*
DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
I AM NOT GOING TO ADD THE YELLOW CAKE THAT WAS FOUND ALSO
NOW FOR THE RECORD YOUR STATING THAT EACH OF THESE EVENTS ARE FALSE, THE PEOPLE ARE LYING, THE LINKS ARE LIES AND YOU HAVE PROOF TO PROVE THAT Nic_Driver;4101248


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

None of the above, JRK, negates the fact that the USA did not have authorization from the UN to act on its behalf.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Both the Libyan War and Iraq War could be called illegal. But i will say Bush at least went to our Congress for approval of the Iraq War. Our involvement in the Libyan War is definitely illegal. It is unconstitutional. It was their Civil War. We had no business bombing & killing any Libyans. So the Left's constant cheerleading for killing Gaddafi really is grotesque and proves what hypocrites they are. Was Gaddafi really any more "Evil" than Saddam Hussein? The Left has lost all credibilty at this point. I will never trust them again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow your opinion on the legality of the Libyan war is inaccurate, and you know it.  No, it is not unconstitutional.  This is neither a left nor a right thing at all.  But you need to get both sides, left and right, of your brain talking to one another.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK, just read the information in this link and post on its content please.
> 
> snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
> 
> I'm still waiting JRK.



Still waiting...


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



DD?  Did you ever read the resolution that passed?  Here's the meat.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and 
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and 
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 


The US had agreed to 1441, which was being enforced and proving Iraq was no significant threat.  Iraq was not involved in 9-11.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



There never was a SCR 1442.  There was a 1441 but it was not Iraq that did not abide by it, it was the USA that disregarded it and launched an illegal aggressive war.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq or Libya. That's the reality. The Left and Neocons are just playing games and arguing over petty semantics. They actually agree on so much. So it is funny watching them pretend they disagree with each other. Our current President should have gone to our Congress for approval of the Libyan War though. I firmly stand behind my feelings on that. It's time for a truly humble Foreign Policy. No more awful Foreign Interventions. Time to fix our own broken Nation.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq or Libya. That's the reality. The Left and Neocons are just playing games and arguing over petty semantics. They actually agree on so much. So it is funny watching them pretend they disagree with each other. Our current President should have gone to our Congress for approval of the Libyan War though. I firmly stand behind my feelings on that. It's time for a truly humble Foreign Policy. No more awful Foreign Interventions. Time to fix our own broken Nation.



Neocons are tea partiers are republicans. same players, same voters. They dont fool me.

I am an isolationist. The middle east is crazy. We should NOT be involved with them, much less have our forces over there.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > We shouldn't have intervened in Iraq or Libya. That's the reality. The Left and Neocons are just playing games and arguing over petty semantics. They actually agree on so much. So it is funny watching them pretend they disagree with each other. Our current President should have gone to our Congress for approval of the Libyan War though. I firmly stand behind my feelings on that. It's time for a truly humble Foreign Policy. No more awful Foreign Interventions. Time to fix our own broken Nation.
> ...



There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and a Neocon. They're both Big Government Nanny Staters in the end. And they both love all these Foreign Interventions. They like to pretend they disagree so much but they really do agree on most issues. So who will be bombing & killing next? Stay tuned.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK, just read the information in this link and post on its content please.
> ...



No your not, nor have you been

Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? *It doesnt fit the medias neat story line that Saddam Husseins Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003. Its a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad*. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuelthus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a significant step toward closing the books on Saddams nuclear legacy. Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soonSaddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bushs decision to invade. Investors Business Daily
No WMD in Iraq Huh? | Pundit Review


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



If you think that the Un has any bearing on this your nuts
simple, nuts
The UN will never dictate who and how we protect our selves

when congress gave him the green flag in 02 and we found WMDs and yellow cake after we invaded it all became null and void
TO the fact any resolution signed with the UN had to be no good, it was all based on lies, from the UN
There the ones who claimed there was no yellow cake in Iraq, No WMDS
are you nuts?
why the desperation?
LET I9T GO
GWB WAS RIGHT 
WE WON


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

people CAN ANY OF YOU PRODUCE A DOCUMENT FROM OUR CONSTITUTION THAT STATES THE UN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE US SENATE OR THE PRESIDENT?

LET ME ADD
ANY AND ALL RESOLUTIONS WITH THE UN AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAQ CANNOT EVER BE TAKEN SERIOUS AS IT WAS SIGNED ON FALSE AND IN- ACCURATE INFORAMTION
jAN 2003 THE UN CLAIMED THAT IRAQ HAD NO "YELLOW CAKE"
Current stockpile	None; programme was infiltrated, abandoned, destroyed by Israel and Iran in 1989. Officially program ended in 1990.
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YET WE4 KNOW NOW THAT SADDAM HAD 550 TONS STOCKPILED
IN FATC IF ANY-ONE SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR LYING IT SHOULD BE THE UN. 

IN ADDITION THERE WERE OVER 500 MUNITIONS FOUND THAT WERE SUPPOSE TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED AND DESTROYED YEARS AGO


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



The progressives come in Big Government Left Wing and Big Government Right Wing, whether Clinton or the Bushes or Obama.  American progressives are not commies or socialists, and the Hard Right is not conservative only reactionary.

Come on, guys, you have to get your terms and definitions right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> people CAN ANY OF YOU PRODUCE A DOCUMENT FROM OUR CONSTITUTION THAT STATES THE UN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE US SENATE OR THE PRESIDENT?
> 
> LET ME ADD
> ANY AND ALL RESOLUTIONS WITH THE UN AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAQ CANNOT EVER BE TAKEN SERIOUS AS IT WAS SIGNED ON FALSE AND IN- ACCURATE INFORAMTION
> ...



JRK, the modern nations have signed international agreements about war crimes.  Bush's regime tried to renege on some of them, but that does not not make a war crime something else.

We were in violation of international law.  Our leaders can be tried as war criminals.  Those who defend them can be tried as members of an illegal war-crimes organization.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The joint resolution passed by congress did in fact mention the UN. and it's resolutions.

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

Again no one claimed Iraq had no Yellow cake.  The site and it's content were accounted for by the wepons inspectors.  It did not represent anything new.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Yes, and I'm still waiting.

The yellow cake was identified, labeled and stored back in 1991 and was _*legally*_ in Iraq when Bush invaded.

You seem to keep skipping over this important detail.  



Is that because you are being dishonest or is it because you simply don't understand?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.



Support of a popular rebellion and invasion to overthrow are two completely different things.

Stop trying to compare them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.
> ...



LibocalypseNow understands the difference, just won't admit it.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Level with me Vern.

Are you related to GWB?

Or were you dropped on your head when you were a baby? 

.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



You have no link that proves that
There is not documentation that states that
IN FACT THIS IS FROM Wikipedia WHO CLAIMS PRIOR TO THE 2003 INVASIO IRAQ NEVER HAD ANY STOCKPILED AND AT NO TIME DOES THIS ENTIRE LINK TALK TO THERE BEING EVER YELLOW CAKE URTANIUM IN IRAQ 
Nuclear program start date	1959
First nuclear weapon test	None
First fusion weapon test	None
Last nuclear test	None
Largest yield test	None
Total tests	None
Peak stockpile	None
*Current stockpile	None; programme was infiltrated, abandoned, destroyed by Israel and Iran in 1989. Officially program ended in 1990.*
Maximum missile range	Al-Hussein (400km)
NPT signatory	Yes
NC your out of your leauge
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> people CAN ANY OF YOU PRODUCE A DOCUMENT FROM OUR CONSTITUTION THAT STATES THE UN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE US SENATE OR THE PRESIDENT?
> 
> LET ME ADD
> ANY AND ALL RESOLUTIONS WITH THE UN AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAQ CANNOT EVER BE TAKEN SERIOUS AS IT WAS SIGNED ON FALSE AND IN- ACCURATE INFORAMTION
> ...



Please show us where the UN published that.  Ever heard of the IAEA?

INVO - Factsheet

No matter how much you lie about it, it was not worth the life of one American, not one.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



.......Saddam was suicidal?

.

So are you a relative or just brain damaged?

.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Every link is clear, there was no new yellow cake discovered after Bush invaded.  The yellow cake that was found was from as far back as 1981, none later than 1991.  

It was known to the UN which was the organization that found, identified, barreled and labeled it a decade before Bush invaded.

It's like talking with a child, seriously...

It's like talking with a child.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

From JRK's link wikilink.....

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,&#8217; [stated then U.S. Ambassador Negroponte] &#8216;Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.&#8217;[79]

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of. the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.[80]

The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the U.S. invasion made it a moot point


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.
> ...



Semantics. Both were wrong. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really do agree on much more than they will ever admit. Both are Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters in the end. I actually enjoy watching them pretend to disagree on so much. Very entertaining.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

> Originally Posted by JRK





> IN FACT THIS IS FROM *Wikipedia*



Well...there you go, wikipedia...


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.



With respect to your thread
Your opinion on the matter of Iraq is just that, your opinion

1) Our representatives voted in favor of attacking Iraq both in the house and the senate as it related to the UN sanctions
2) Hans Blix states that the following 1-27-2003
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "I*
*
3) WE invade 3/2003 as per the terms of the agreement voted on and approved in congress, Iraq has not adhered to many if not all of the UN resolutions
4) The DOD presents evidence to congress that in-deed Iraq has lied as there are over 500 munition found that meet criteria of WMD. The left claims these ar out dated and from the 80s. At no time has the UN made nor the US made any agreements that state "dont worry about destroying the mustard gas that is old" let me add that these munitions in 1994 probaly were not in the same shape. To the point the DOD has by doing this for ever more showed justification for the invasion
5) As a bonus, 550 metric tons of "yellow cake" are found after the invasion. This now is a legal as it gets. 

Now my friend you dis agreeing with this war is your business. Changing the facts to justify  it is not
With respect what was illegal about the Iraq invasion

1) congress approves wit terms
2) terms are met


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



1)  Your standard was it was an "international crime" if the UN didn't authorize it, but it's suddenly now that we're talking about Democrats.

2)  You addressed two out of a long list.  None of my examples were UN resolutions, so were they all war crimes, your stated standard?

I'm against all these, try to focus on my points and stop giving me our canned "neocon" talking points.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 6, 2011)

> Semantics.



No, not a semantically difference but a very real and tangible difference.

The really funny part is you know this full well but it fits your agenda to be obtuse so you are.


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> From JRK's link wikilink.....
> 
> Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,
> 
> ...



what does the UN have to do with the US congress and the terms it set forth to attack?
Saddam did not meet HR-1441
we invaded
again you have shown nothing in our constitution that states the UN has jurisdiction in the matters that concern our country, its congress nor its president


----------



## JRK (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Originally Posted by JRK
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What r you trying to say?
that the UN had jurisdiction over this country and how it defends itself??
The US congress in 2002 thought different as we ll as our president in 2003

You want to claim it was illegal, then congress did the same


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You guys are no different than the Neocons you claim to hate so much. You guys just love bombing & killing all around the World. You just pretend not to like it when it's the other side doing the bombing & killing. You guys can't fool me any more than the Neocons can. You're all just Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters in the end. You're both the problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Not at all, and you know it.  Focus on my points and stop tap dancing.  I was talking about Iraq.  Libya is different and you know it.


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm tap dancing?  You said it was an "international crime" because the UN didn't authorize it.  Libya is not different, and none are the rest of the items on my list, the UN authorized none of them. That's why I left Bosnia off it.

Since you said it's an international crime if the UN didn't authorize it, were the military actions on my list which were not authorized by the UN war crime?  It's your standard, you are the one tap dancing.  It's a simple question, answer it.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

Only true Constitutional Conservatism can save our Nation now. Both the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons have brought our Nation to its knees. They both just love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. So watching them argue over which stupid War was better or worse really is bizarre. They're both destroying our Nation. So join the Revolution and as many we will be victorious.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2011)

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees.  Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees.  Conty you will not get the world you want.
> 
> Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.



Bam, now that's what I'm talking about.  Before your standard was there had to be a "UN resolution."  Ooops Democrats didn't get those either.  So now the standard is..."an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships."

Now that's tap dancing...


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees.  Conty you will not get the world you want.
> 
> Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.



But he didn't consult me or the American People. He refused to go to our Congress. So the Libyan War was unjust and unconstitutional. It was their Civil War. Obviously you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons are hard-headed and stubborn so i'm not gonna get through to most of you. But hopefully some Americans are waking up. Constitutional Conservatism is the logical way forward for this Nation. You guys have done enough damage.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Hmmm. Let's see. They're now publicly supporting the Syrian and Iranian governments. Well, you know those wild and whacky Shia's! 

Yeah. Big success!


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees.  Conty you will not get the world you want.
> ...



What are you talking about?  He consulted the international leftist community and they were good!  Why should he consult you?  I don't get it...


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 6, 2011)

kaz said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yea Socialists/Progressives are just as lost as the Neocons are. As long as it's their Democrat doing the bombing & killing,all is well with them. That's why i always say the Anti-War Left are the biggest frauds in America.  Where are all their 'Human Shields' for ole Gaddafi? They sent a bunch over there for ole Saddam no? As usual,it's all about politics for most. Hopefully one day the American People will wake up and see that it is Constitutional Conservatism that will save us. Til that day comes,the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons will continue on destroying our Nation.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > From JRK's link wikilink.....
> ...



The UN was specifically mentioned in the resolution.  The UN was set up to stop wars of aggression.


----------



## Dude111 (Sep 7, 2011)

Sallow said:
			
		

> There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq.


Nope not at all.....JUST FAKE REASONS FORCED UNTO THE SHEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BOUGHT IT


----------



## Iceberg_slim (Sep 7, 2011)

The same reason they claim that the USPS is a failure!!!


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



So your stating that the 62% that voted in the last election in Iraq voted to support the country of Iran and Syria?
do you have proof of that?


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

Dude111 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well with the exception of resolution 1441
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (fact)

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." (500 munitions found after invasion as well as 550 tons of yellow cake)

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 known to be in Iraq. (also found to be true as many have killed in Iraq sense)
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (fact)
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
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.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
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.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Passage

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
United States House of Representatives
Party	Ayes	Nays	PRES	No Vote
Republican	215	6	0	2
Democratic	82	126	0	1
Independent	0	1	0	0
TOTALS	297	133	0	3
126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party	Ayes	Nays	No Vote
Republican	48	1	0
Democratic	29	21	0
Independent	0	1	0
TOTALS	77	23	0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dude111 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Wrong again as ususal.  

http://lcnp.org/global/CNDLegalOpinion.pdf

The language of SCR 1441 is clear that the only actions that members would take if the inspectors found any of the alleged WMD or if they were hindered in their search was for the SC to reconviene to determine what to do.  That is the only way several countries would sign off on it.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 7, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...




You're pretty good at making up stuff.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 7, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



I stand by what i stated. There is very little difference between a Socialist/Progressive and Neocon. They agree on much more than they disagree on. They both just love these stupid Foreign Interventions. Watching them squabble over petty semantics is pretty hilarious. What are they really arguing about?


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dude111 said:
> ...



and the US being a member found over 500 of them
I am just kidding
your trying to convince the world the UN had jurisdiction  over the US and defending its self
There is nothing I can do to comment on that
its to big of a joke, with respect to it being a joke
i am, serious
this country is not going to defend its self if the UN says it can


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 7, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



Give me a break. everyone who was a neo con and supported them are now big tea partiers. I just call them republicans and keep it easy. The right wing keeps trying to re-invent itself as it denies what it has done in the past. I fully expect all repubs to embrace the tea partiers...they are already doing it! different name, same folks.....PS-there are no socialists.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You better go check the Iranian polling.  You were told this would happen as the result of an illegal war against Iraq, but you would not believe it.

You are as culpable as the Bush administration.


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



to start with the UN did not do there job
every-one who has spun this speaks of the over 500 munitions found that met the criteria of a WMD as being old and not udefull
The terms of the agreement made no mention of age nor condition and it should be noted the shape of those munitions in the 90s would not reflect the condition they were in 2003

To document there being: they failed
to document there destruction: they failed
same with the large amount of yellow cake found


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> Give me a break. everyone who was a neo con and supported them are now big tea partiers.



Utter bullshit.

The amazing shit you fascists will claim..

First Tea Party I attended was aimed against Bush and McCain for their amnesty drive - you know, the fucking neocons.



> I just call them republicans and keep it easy.



Why not call them "infidels?" It better showcases your mindset and attitude?



> The right wing keeps trying to re-invent itself as it denies what it has done in the past. I fully expect all repubs to embrace the tea partiers...they are already doing it! different name, same folks.....PS-there are no socialists.....




The Tea party is normal Americans - of course you hate them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2011)

No WMDS of any signficance or threat were found; if they were, the administration would have announced such, and such was announced.

The war was not illegal.

End of story, JRK.  You lose, and the senior Bushies will never travel to western Europe again.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 7, 2011)

Saddam Hussein's dead and soon Gaddafi will be too. And that's what all you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons wanted. So what are you really arguing about? You both got what you wanted. So just STFU and quit your bitchin. You both just love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. You're both the same entity in my opinion...Just Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2011)

Lib, shut up yourself.  You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lib, shut up yourself.  You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.



ROFL

It that right little fascist?


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



In this countries history the GN event was as pure of a socialist event 
BHO ignore congress
he ignored contract law and used tax payers wealth with-out congress approvig to use tax payers wealth to do it with

and as far the GOPs history
5% UE with deficits adding up to be less than 4 trillion from the 80s with RR, the 90s with the GOP congress uo untill 2007 in which UE was below 5% and we were within 163 billion of a balance budget
the debt did climb more than the 4 trillion due to interest, but as defeicit spending goes we created 40 million jobs while adding about 200 billion a year in deficts with the last 4 years having 2 wars going against those yearly deficits]

now we are talking trillion+ in a year with 9+% UE
you really want to compare these facts?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lib, shut up yourself.  You are a right-wing progressive, who is out of his depth here.
> ...



You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 7, 2011)

Seriously,Hussein is dead and soon Gaddafi will be too. So you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons both got what you wanted. You should both be rejoicing instead of bitching so much. And you both have a lot more in common than you like to believe. I see very little differences in Socialist/Progressive and Neocon policies. You're all just a bunch of Big Government stooges in my opinion. Only Constitutional Conservatism can save us now. You both have failed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.



I think you got so excited that you pissed yourself, moron.


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are the right extremist fascist, Uncensored, and we will keep pointing you out every time your run your mouth stupidly.
> ...



jake has nothing to offer but anger
I have him on ignore
u might want to do the same


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> jake has nothing to offer but anger
> I have him on ignore
> u might want to do the same



Sometimes a Chihuahua that is so mad that it's pissing all over is the funniest thing to watch.

Little Fascist Jake is like that!

Ignore? It's fools like Jake that have me coming here!


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



He's ok but he's just a misguided Socialist/Progressive who wanted Gaddafi dead yet is still so upset that the Neocons wanted Saddam Hussein dead. He's just confused. He still hasn't realized that Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really aren't all that different. I'm sure he's a good person though. Just a confused person. That's all.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 7, 2011)

Stupidest war ever. End of story.


----------



## JRK (Sep 7, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



There is some truth to your feelings. I wish GB had not had 9-11
his historic tax cuts with congress never had a chance to really do there best

No teacher left behind 
medicare add ons
these were un funded with 9-11 doing its harm

without the wars we have a surplus by 2007
probably before then

But you are correct, until it came to Obama. he is in a leauge of his own


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 8, 2011)

It is difficult to believe that this thread is still functioning. What was the result of the War in Iraq? We established a fragile, barely functioning pseudo-democracy in alliance with Iran and Syria, America's fiercest foes in the region. Yes, Saddam was an evil man, but America put him there. Where were the voiced of the right wing when he was committing these atrocities? Were you speaking out against the results of America's actions? No, it was 'My country right or wrong'. The only stance that those of you on the right take is to oppose whatever Liberals believe in, which is no stance at all.


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> It is difficult to believe that this thread is still functioning. What was the result of the War in Iraq? We established a fragile, barely functioning pseudo-democracy in alliance with Iran and Syria, America's fiercest foes in the region. Yes, Saddam was an evil man, but America put him there. Where were the voiced of the right wing when he was committing these atrocities? Were you speaking out against the results of America's actions? No, it was 'My country right or wrong'. The only stance that those of you on the right take is to oppose whatever Liberals believe in, which is no stance at all.



Fragile? 62% of the poulation voted in the last election
It was Iraq under GWB pushing the issue that agreed we should leave in 2012, we are

I dont care what the spin is in who oput him there, the reason this thread is still going is the truth is hitting these peoples eyes for the first time
some will not accept it, but most i am sure are amazed


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > It is difficult to believe that this thread is still functioning. What was the result of the War in Iraq? We established a fragile, barely functioning pseudo-democracy in alliance with Iran and Syria, America's fiercest foes in the region. Yes, Saddam was an evil man, but America put him there. Where were the voiced of the right wing when he was committing these atrocities? Were you speaking out against the results of America's actions? No, it was 'My country right or wrong'. The only stance that those of you on the right take is to oppose whatever Liberals believe in, which is no stance at all.
> ...



*Amazed at what?*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > It is difficult to believe that this thread is still functioning. What was the result of the War in Iraq? We established a fragile, barely functioning pseudo-democracy in alliance with Iran and Syria, America's fiercest foes in the region. Yes, Saddam was an evil man, but America put him there. Where were the voiced of the right wing when he was committing these atrocities? Were you speaking out against the results of America's actions? No, it was 'My country right or wrong'. The only stance that those of you on the right take is to oppose whatever Liberals believe in, which is no stance at all.
> ...



Most are amazed at stupid neo-con nonsense you spew.  The difference in the neo-con actions of Bush and Obama is that the latter did it more cleverly and legally, Bush did not and we are reaping the whirlwind.  An Iraq allied with Iran is not the desired end goal but will be what we get.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



They should've been unfunded and never put into place, no conservative would ever dream of supporting No Child Left Behind or medicare add ons.


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



Not sure I dis agree with you and as far as my support no more than I know I am not sure I understand it enough to support it
The medicare prescription should have had enough of an off set in the amount we are taxed to off set it. 
No child left behind I could not agree with any more with you. Educating our kids should be just that


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 8, 2011)

* 	 Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
*


> The medicare prescription should have had enough of an off set in the amount we are taxed to off set it.
> No child left behind I could not agree with any more with you. Educating our kids
> should be just that



Well, I'm pretty sure those who "think" the Iraqi war is a failure, who think Republicans don't care about seniors social security or leaving children behind in any way could be just thinking in terms of saying the little yakkety yak things that scare people into voting for their own candidates, not Republican ones. The truth is, Republicans are not going after valid claims on social security, are not going after kids' medical or educational needs, nor any other way that would diminish any American citizen. All that negative stuff is just scare-talk the opposition always claims as a step up to their agendas to get power over the budget to tax and spend. We may be out of money, but we're not out of heart, and we will defend the nation's safety, wherever it takes us.

Go, Republicans!


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> * 	 Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> *
> 
> 
> ...



I agree

The issue i had with no child left behind was it was for the most part unfunded

No 9-11 and we have a balanced budget by 2007, if not before

Looking back I am not sure we should have had a VAT tax tied directly to the wars
It would have been pennies
we did the right thing by invading, I truly believe that
It amazes me that a person will call them selves a "conservative" and would be against funding the wars
war was not our doing. We had no choice. All of us should have made a scarfiice to have paid for it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2011)

NCLB has been a monstrostiy, and never should have been enacted: both parties at fault for that.

The Iraqi has been economically and philosophically a fiasco: illegal, unsustainable, and eventually a failure as Iran allies with Iraq.  We had every choice, and we made the wrong one.  Any conservative or Hard Right will agree with that.


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




Amazed that Saddam had WMDs that were never accounted for in Iraq
Amazed that there was a small mountain of yellow cake found in Iraq that was not accounted for
Amazed there is al-Qaeda in Iraq
The group was founded in 2003 and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004. It was initially operating under the name Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: &#1580;&#1605;&#1575;&#1593;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1578;&#1608;&#1581;&#1610;&#1583; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1580;&#1607;&#1575;&#1583;*, "Group of Monotheism and Jihad"); since 2004 its official name is Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[4] Foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters are widely thought to play a key role in its network.[5]

Amzed that it is over, we did exa ctly what wesaid we were going to do and with 62% OF the Iraqi people voting in the last election its looking good


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2011)

I am amazed that JRK continues to be so goofy about this issue.  He is an example of what unthinking neo-consevatism can do to an American's brain pan.  Wow.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'm amazed that you have the balls to still profess these lies when they've been debunked multiple times, by multiple people in multiple posts.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



They were old and not in a usable state.  Not that they were not still dangerous in some way.

Iraq did in fact fail to document the destruction of several items in it's inventory of prohibited weapons and chemical.  A very small percent of what they had.  That was not the reason given for the invasion.  That was that he was actively producing and stockpiling new weapons.  Leftover muntions from the 80's (develops while receiving support from the West) was not a good enough reason to send 4000+ soldiers to their graves, well at least to me it's not.  Perhaps it is to you......


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yellow cake

If you check into this, you'll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam's government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

Al Queda in Iraq

If you check further into this alleged camp with ties to al Queda, it was set up in the Free-Kurdish zone protected by the US and had no operational ties with Saddams govenement.

What we said?

No we didn't honor our commitment we made when we signed on to SCR 1441.  We breached the peace.  We were the aggressors.  It was a strategic blunder that will cost us for decades to come.


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> * 	 Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> *
> 
> 
> ...



*What bullshit. LOL*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2011)

Saddam was a threat because he did not fess up, and I am glad that JRK admitted that.

The problem was that (1) the military intelligence was not good, and (2) Cheney et al had their game strategy in place and did not want facts to change it.

JRK is the perfect example of right-wing progressive neo-con thinking, that the projection of military strength internationally can make other countries little "Americas" supporting us.  How wrong.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 8, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Only the words of their president 

BAGHDAD  As leaders in the Arab world and other countries condemn President Bashar al-Assads violent crackdown on demonstrators in Syria, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has struck a far friendlier tone, urging the protesters not to sabotage the state and hosting an official Syrian delegation. 
Mr. Malikis support for Mr. Assad has illustrated how much Iraqs position in the Middle East has shifted toward an axis led by Iran. And it has also aggravated the fault line between Iraqs Shiite majority, whose leaders have accepted Mr. Assads account that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising, and the Sunni minority, whose leaders have condemned the Syrian crackdown. 

The unrest in Syria has exacerbated the old sectarian divides in Iraq because the Shiite leaders have grown close to Assad and the Sunnis identify with the people, said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Groups deputy program director for the Middle East. 

He added: Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago and keeping him in power so he finds himself in a difficult position. 

Iraq and Syria have not had close relations for years, long before the American invasion. During the sectarian violence here that broke out after the invasion, Iraqi leaders blamed Syria for allowing suicide bombers and other militants to enter the country. 

But Syria and Iran have had close ties, a factor in the recalibration of relations between Syria and Iraq. Last year, Iran pressured Mr. Assad into supporting Mr. Maliki for prime minister, which eventually helped him gain a second term. Since then, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Assad have strengthened relations, signing trade deals and increasing Syrian investment in Iraq. 


Like I said long ago, it doesn't matter how long we stay, we're fighting thousands of years of culture. They'll AWAYS hate Westerners and will revert to a theocracy, if not officially, in practice. It will come down to religious unity guiding every decision. We've accomplished nothing.
Oh and btw, after they refused to spend any of their own money rebuilding their country and insisted we spend ours (which we did), who did they give their first oil contracts to? Our economic rival: China. Nice slap inthe face, don't you think?


----------



## JRK (Sep 8, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...




_The unrest in Syria has exacerbated the old sectarian divides in Iraq because the Shiite leaders have grown close to Assad and the Sunnis identify with the people, said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Groups deputy program director for the Middle East. 

He added: Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago and keeping him in power so he finds himself in a difficult position. _Thats not Malikis words those atr HJoost hiltermann, who ever he is

And as far as having a working relationship with Syria have you ever looked at a map? thats like saying Florida and georgia have agreed to trade deals

Now was this war about oil are not? y7ou liberals need to make up ypur minds
We dont need iraqi oil we have plenty right here, Obama will not let us build the pipelines to get it to the refinaries


----------



## IndependntLogic (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I love that you call me a Liberal! Would go to the threat I started about unions abusing their power and costing American jobs, and tell the guy who called me a "Con" that?
Love the whackjob mentality. Anyone disagreeing with you on anything must instantly be labeled as "those other guys".
If you think we've changed anything for long, well, I'll refrain from labels and insults.

So why did we go? Was it because we were told of the threat of imminent attack with WMD's?
Or was Jefferson full of shit when he said our job is not to promote democracy by interfering with the affairs of other nations and to do so would be UnConstitutional? Which of course means you wold support the Obama wars... Oh wait! Lemme guess. You don't. That was tough to predict. Just like your opinion on any of a dozen other issues.
Sheeple.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 9, 2011)

*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*

It was sold to the U N and the American public on the fear of mushroom clouds and a guarantee too be paid for with Iraqi oil.  Both lies.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*
> 
> It was sold to the U N and the American public on the fear of mushroom clouds and a guarantee too be paid for with Iraqi oil.  Both lies.



Oil? do not recall that one
Mushroom clouds? do not recall that one, even though there was enough yellow cake found it took 30+ cargo planes to haul it out of there


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK is merely a wreck of a progressive right-wing neo-con who fails in the OP continually.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > *      Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



Not so. The Republican Party began as an anti-slavery group and still believes in human rights in the 21st century. The freudian term which you are representing actually is careless scare-talk the political opposition uses when it wants to pull the wool over the public with catch-phrases that claim Republicans are dishonest, greedy, and overbearing, all of which are far from the truth. In addition, we take up the Constitutional charge to provide for the common defense. This angers our anti-American, international enemies whose money pays for a lot of the badmouthing Republicans and other conservatives in America receive.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*
> 
> It was sold to the U N and the American public on the fear of mushroom clouds and a guarantee too be paid for with Iraqi oil.  Both lies.



Those "lies" came from the Bill Clinton State Department as well as being confirmed by famous Euro spy agencies looking into terrorism. I read them and I know where these stories originated. Saddam played shell games with his nukes. Then when the situation got too hot to handle, he fed-exed his nukes over his borders to other terrorist-sponsoring nations.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*
> ...



Well to start there was much found in Iraq as GWB stated we would (thru the CIA etc...)
WMDs? check
Yellow cake? Check

The left lied so bad about what was really there that when it was found and it became public it was found no-one run with it. CBS I think claims that the UN had the yellow cake under raps prior to the invasion
That would be the same UN that stated there was no WMDs found before the invasion. CBS has become a joke


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*
> ...



OIL

Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for reconstructing the country, i.e. a cost of the war. The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Were dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon, he said. 

One month before the war, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Iraq is a rather wealthy country.  And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.

SHROOMS 

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- George W. Bush, 10/07/02 

"As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein." -- George W. Bush, 10/07/02 

The Yellow Cake your pushing is a still Red Herring......


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq - CNN

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I will not debate that matter nor will I try and convince any-one there is much proof that numerous WMDs were moved prior to our invasion 
but
The Un for good reasons also thought that Saddam had 1000s of WMDs/anthrax and VX nerve agent that were never accounted for, it was not just the CIA
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[118] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[118]


Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; *Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; *Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.
EXPLORE WORLD NEWS
WORLD AGENDA
IRAQ NEWS
US & AMERICAS NEWS
EUROPE NEWS
MIDDLE EAST NEWS
AFGHANISTAN NEWS
ASIA NEWS
AFRICA NEWS
IRELAND NEWS

Iraq set tougher weapons test by Blix - Times Online


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2011)

The right-wing progressive neo-cons here simply fail to successfully evidence the OP.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK, you do realize that you can't change the facts by ignoring them...right?




> _Ignorace is bliss_.  Thomas Gray




You must be one blissful mother f-er.


----------



## LAfrique (Sep 9, 2011)

For starters:

1). The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on lies upon lies,

2). Thousands of lives have been unnecessarily lost as result of unjust invasion of Iraq,

3). Operation in Iraq brought the US to its knees financially,

4). All tactics used to stop resistance only appeared to be working because of the killings of thousands of Iraqis,

5). US is still struggling to control Iraqi nationalists 8 years after George W. Bush announced "mission accomplished." 


Long and short of the matter is: You cannot box true humans. Remember the British called North Americans resisting British impositions in teh 1770s insurgents and terrorists. But it the same resisitance by North americans that eventually laid the foundation for "We the people ...." Those Iraqis, like 1770s Americans, want to be left alone to manage their own affairs and determine their own destiny. 

We are still in Iraq plus Afghanistan plus Pakistan plus Libya, just to name a few. Warlikeness is not going to get 'us" anywhere. I wish we would learn to mind our own business and just leave other people alone.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 9, 2011)

LAfrique said:


> For starters:
> 
> 1). The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on lies upon lies,
> 
> ...




Couldn't I have just logged on to DailyKOS and read that directly?

What does your cutting and pasting from the Hate Sites bring to the party?

I'm just askin....


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

LAfrique said:


> For starters:
> 
> 1). The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on lies upon lies,
> 
> ...



1) What lies? If you think there were lies then why do you not provide those lies?
2) Thats your opinion
3) Operation Iraq cost less than the failed stimulus and has saved billions with base closings in Saudi and Kuwait to include the billions the UN was milking also. those monies had no stop to them and the exact amount is unknown (that would make to much sense to look at that war with common sense)
4) The Killing of Iraqis was done by other people than the US. I have no idea what that meant
5) 62% of the Iraqi people voted in the last election. They are as agreed upon in November of 2008 taking care of there own business now

Again what lies are you talking about?


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK, you do realize that you can't change the facts by ignoring them...right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude you keep making statement that have no truth to them
What fact have I ignored?
thats the problem is you keep thinking that the CIA stating that Saddam had WMDs and that the UN stating that Saddam had WMDs that were not accounted for is not the same thing
Mother fu---er?
dude you got NO CLASS to bring that into this. I am sorry you have made a fool of your self, but enough of the MF when it comes to me


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Liberals get beat they resort to name calling and character assassination
Just look above at NIC
I respect peoples opinion, but to lie about those events to support your opinion is not good. But when you attack verbally the people who point out those lies
thats not cool

not agreeing on the way people govern can be changed when there re-election comes up
people were happy with GWB or he would have not been re-elected
Obama in my opinion is gone in 2012. If you dis agree with that it does not make you a bad person
If you dis agree with that and then call me a mother fuc-er because of that, what exactly does that make you now?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> What fact have I ignored?



All of them.

You are a fool's fool.  It's a shame that you choose to be so ignorant but I guess it is of no real consequence to me.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> I respect peoples opinion, but to lie about those events to support your opinion is not good.



To be shown the truth and to ignore it is worse JRK.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > What fact have I ignored?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know you do a good job name calling
thats about 3rd grade level
what facts have I ignored. if your so right and I am so wrong, bring it on
if not
shut up


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > What fact have I ignored?
> ...



U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com



> Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.




Do you understand what this means?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> LAfrique said:
> 
> 
> > For starters:
> ...


*First it was because of WMD's. Then it was regime change. then it was to control the oil in the area. They kept changing their story, so some of them were lies.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Do you understand that claim was made after the fact?
Let me ask you a simple question. Are you really trying to convince yourself that we would just allow that stuff as well Saddam to just sit there all of those years when there was no UN people in that country?
And that at no time Clinton nor GWB would have made in a passing comment "by the way they have about 550 metric tons of yellow cake over there"

There is no document I have seen that states that yellow cake existed prior to 2003
NONE
There is as many web sites stating this stuff was found By US troops after the invasion as many that are stating nothing
It makes no sense, none. Your believing the US does not say a word about this stuff when the UN is kicked out? and we invade there is no "oh by the way Saddam you better not move that Yellow cake"

You call me a liar because my link states other facts than yours does?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

When you go to Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 short tons (500 t) of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Baghdad.[97]
It states nothing about who has what and when it was really found

look YOU GOT ISSUES WITH THE Iraq WAR, THATS YOUR BUSINESS
but to resort to name calling and making up cap to fit your agenda is every-ones

simple as I can put it
do you really think the US pulls out of Iraq knowing there is that much of that crap laying around? without taking it with them?
makes no sense


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> Do you understand that claim was made after the fact?



So no, you don't understand what it means.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK is merely a mess of right-wing progressive neo-con denial.

1) The lies have been proven over and over; that you don't like doesn't mean squat
2) The opinion is better than JRK's any day
3) The operation in Iraq, unfunded in the budget, contributed to the great recession, for no amount of book keeping can deny that fact
4) Iraqis and Americans killed one another in war and in insurgency
5) The Iraqi people taking care of their own business now will ally with Iran to make sure they both take care of their business with us


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/baghdad_press_briefings/december/UNMOVIC%20IAEA%20press%20statement%2012%20Dec%2002.pdf



> UNMOVIC IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq
> 12 December 2002





> Two IAEA teams visited Ibn Sina, formally known as Tarmiya. This was to conduct a follow-up visit to this former uranium enrichment plant to undertake a full inspection of the production and laboratory facilities, including a car-borne Gamma survey of the site and surrounding areas.
> 
> On 10-11 December the IAEA conducted a two-day inspection of the Al Qaim Chemical and Al Qaim Cement facilities located near the Syrian border. Al Qaim was a producer of uranium &#8220;yellow cake&#8221; prior to 1991. The facility was frequently visited by the IAEA prior to 1998 and its processes at that time were well understood. This inspection covered all buildings on this large complex site and included appropriate sampling of raw materials, ore and concentrates.



Your turn JRK.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK is merely turning in a circle.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Do you understand that claim was made after the fact?
> 
> 
> 
> So no, you don't understand what it means.



I understand that you keep going into denial that these events took place in a time that by your claims ss well as others sat quietly for 13 years
Your claim also has one to believe that while there where those who made accusations that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake, He was not going to touch the yellow cake he already had, what did he do? make a promise?
Who watched over the cake when there was no one from the UN there? when he kicked the inspectors out?
really?
Why would any idiot state that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake when there was 550 metric tons of the stuff all ready there?
You think maybe GWB may have mentioned that?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

Inspections in Iraq



> Inspections in Iraq
> Statement of IAEA Director General to IAEA Board of Governors
> 
> Vienna, Austria
> ...





> The first declaration of Iraq, dated 18 April 1991, stated that Iraq had "no industrial and support facilities related to any form of atomic energy use which have to be declared." In a letter from me the day after, on 19 April, I pointed to the fact that there was highly enriched uranium on the inventory of nuclear material in Iraq under safeguards. This should be declared. I also indicated by way of example of what should be declared under the resolution "facilities for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel or for the separation of plutonium from uranium or installations for the separation of isotopes of uranium, or any research programmes or supporting manufacturing facilities related to such activities." I stated that they should be declared "irrespective of whether they have been damaged or destroyed." A second letter from Iraq, of 27 April, attached a list of safeguarded material and information as to its status and a list of nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, again with indications of their status. It also listed the yellow cake production unit at Al Qaim.



You say you couldn't find one document about this, did you even look JRK?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Well I thought you might like to see exactly what the CIA has said about the matter.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > Do you understand that claim was made after the fact?
> ...




So you can just ignore document after document, post after post that says your wrong?

That's the very definition of willful ignorance JRK.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/baghdad_press_briefings/december/UNMOVIC%20IAEA%20press%20statement%2012%20Dec%2002.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My turn to do what bud?
what exactly are you trying to say here?
what raw materials?
ore? is yellow cake a ore?
what does this have to with the UN overseeing the barrels that they were watching? 

Dude I am dead serious here
you make  a cliam that the UN has it, now your saying that IAEA has it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK is a massive fail here, one of the worst in the last year.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/baghdad_press_briefings/december/UNMOVIC%20IAEA%20press%20statement%2012%20Dec%2002.pdf
> ...



Wow, JRK are you serious?.

Yes, yellow cake comes from Uranium ore.

The IAEA is a UN organization.

That you don't understand the article is very telling.  

In all seriousness, why would you start a thread about things you don't understand and why would you argue points about which you know nothing?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


What a coincidence, Sallow. The State Department desires that Madeline Albright's Iraq notes be removed from public scrutiny so their apparatchiks can "prove" nothing ever happened that would implicate President Clinton's administration in the truth. *Sandy Berger was here:

*U.S. Department of State*

*Background Notes: Middle East and North Africa*

 *Background Notes not available  

  Algeria* 
Bahrain (10/96) 
Egypt (03/95) 
Iran (07/94) 
Iraq* 
Israel (12/98) 
Jordan (8/00)
Kuwait (11/94) 
Lebanon (01/94) 
Libya (07/94) 
Morocco (11/94) 
Oman (12/94) 
Qatar (11/97) 
Saudi Arabia (09/98) 
Syria (4/99) 
Tunisia (07/94) 
United Arab Emirates (07/91) 
Yemen (10/96) 
[end of document] 





All Background Notes | Near Eastern Country Information | Near Eastern Affairs | State Department


*Background notes not available for Iraq? Yeah, right. They tell the truth about what Clinton left the Bush administration--that supports every single solitary thing that he did.


Get the criminals out!!!!


Sorry, Sallow. They gotcha unless your real name is Sandy Berger, and my guess it is not, that you are an innocent bystander. 



I dislike liars and liars by omission. That's what they are. Don't you get it? You're being used by people who have perjured themselves, omitted facts so they can induce people like you to pretend all this Iraqi war crap is on Bush. I read Madeline Albright's state department Iraq notes cover to cover in 1999, and they were made available on a news outlet website right up until 6 months before the second Bush election, in which case they have remained out of the public view ever since, and every news website that had the notes posted as a point of discussion no longer exist either. It's like Clinton never warned anybody about Iraq, never did anything about Saddam's attempt on President GHW Bush's life on Clinton's watch, never contacted the United Nations about Saddam's War Crimes and so on.


Omissions are bull, and people who claim Iraq just wasn't a problem under anybody except George W. Bush are making a huge error, thanks to the present omission of what Madeline Albright said about Iraq.


The only reason this is "sensitive" is the insane hope nobody will know exactly how beleaguered the Clinton Administration was by Saddam Hussein's war crimes against humanity, of which a tireless Madeline Albright made a tremendous case that was handed down to Bush's administration.


Pardon me for saying so, but the present Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager, Sandy Berger was convicted and sentenced to community service when he was caught stealing documents from the National Archive to remove any case anyone would have linking the Clintons to Iraq, so they could make the case you're making against George W. Bush, because they're lower than snake snot.


Be chary of tricks from this state department. They particularly do not wish the American public be reminded who let Bush know what Saddam Hussein's war crimes of using WOMDs and his claims of heinous weapons were first known by Madeline Albright.


This is a national disgrace, and guess who's front and center again for omissions. You got it. Mr. It never happened Sandy Berger, National Archive THIEF and after his conviction of this dervish crime, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager.


----------



## Zona (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



What did Iraq have to do with 9/11...you know.  The retaliation we took because of 9/11 was freaking IRaq?  WMD's, wha happened there?

How many thousands of American soldiers were killed because of non existent wmd's?  

Again, what the fuck did 9/11 have to do with iraq?  We got bombed to shit and we retaliated by attacking a fucking country that had NOTHING to do with it. 

Remember 9/12 when we all said, its pay back time and we relied on bush to do the right thing.  What did he do, attack the wrong fucking country.  He actually said there could be mushroom clouds because of the wmd's...that didnt fucking exist.  Every single time one of you idiots tries to defend this, I just shake my head.  How much of a hack can someone be.  Here is a thought, just once say yup, Bush fucked up on that one.  (You cant do it can you.)


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Inspections in Iraq
> 
> 
> 
> ...



where it exactly in that document that states Iraq has given 550 mteric tons of dog poo much less yellow cake 
you thread talks about everything but a large amount of yellow cake
I also thought you claimed the UN had control of this stuff?

and why in gods name would anyone let this tuff sit for all of those years in drums?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> In a letter from me the day after, on 19 April, I pointed to the fact that there was highly enriched uranium on the inventory of nuclear material in Iraq under safeguards.



Do you know what &#8220;highly enriched uranium" is JRK?  Do you know what the term "under safeguards" means?



> A second letter from Iraq, of 27 April, attached a list of safeguarded material and information as to its status and a list of nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, again with indications of their status. It also listed the yellow cake production unit at Al Qaim.



What is attached to this referenced second letter?  Is it a list of safe guarded materials?  Again, do you know what safeguarded means?  Does the letter also list the status of the material?  &#8220;Safeguarded&#8221;? 

These answers are just from the part of the link that I posted.  There is much more information included if you could only read.



> I also thought you claimed the UN had control of this stuff?



The IAEA is the inspection arm of the UN and I told you the UN knew about the yellow cake back in 1991 and it was legally in Iraq at the time of Bush's invasion.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Zona said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. 

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs. 

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. 

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[118] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[118]

this is from the UN, not the CIA nor is it from anyone else
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in addition
The chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council on January 27 that large quantities of missiles and deadly biological and chemical agents, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, had still not been properly accounted for by the Baghdad regime.
 Dr Blix said Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration to the Security Council on December 7 had failed to address many of the outstanding issues raised in reports by the old inspection teams before they were forced to leave in 1998.
 There were indications that Iraq had "weaponised" the lethal VX nerve agents, despite claiming to have unilaterally destroyed the "small quantities" it produced after the 1991 Gulf War, he said.
 Documents among the few new papers released to the inspectors suggested there were 6,500 chemical bombs unaccounted for containing in the order of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents.
this again was not from the CIA nor anyone but Saddam and the UN
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHm6Navr4IrULh0yLgjc34dkv5WIQ

and there is the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that no-one seems to know when it was really found
For years, the media and Democrats have sold the public an understanding that Gerorge W. Bush fabricated a story that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program in order to justify invading Iraq, which invasion then becomes "based on a lie."


About 550 metric tons of yellowcake concentrated uranium were recently shipped out of Iraq.  It had been part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.  That much was recently reported by the Associated Press .  I wrote an article for American Thinker that commented on that story  the day it appeared.


That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003.  That was mentioned in the AP article and I mentioned it in the update to my article the day it was published.  In fact, American Thinker contributors Douglas Hanson and Rick Moran had written about that yellowcake stockpile years ago here, here and here.  Douglas Hanson reported four years ago:


"Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."


The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely.  But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all.  This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out.  As Investor's Business Daily more recently put it , "Seems to us this should be big news," but "the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years."


Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was.  First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia.  Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive.  It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs.  The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it.  It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents.  That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.


However, some readers have noted its "old news" aspect.  One wrote the American Thinker as follows.


"Of course there was lots of yellow cake in Iraq . Those news orgs you so dislike reported five years ago on how tons of it was just sitting out in the open in Tawaitha. It was so accessible that the locals were looting the site. Most of the articles at that time were critical of the lack of security from U.S. troops for the former nuclear development site. Please note the word former...it's pretty important since former was the word you could use in 2000 as well. Anyway, that isn't news. Neither is the fact that Saddam had delivery mechanisms. However, he did not have an active nuclear weapons program, unless one means the capacity to deliver one or two dirty bombs (which the yellow cake couldn't be used for, btw, because it is basically an inert compound). But even dirty bombs aren't a particularly scary threat, since you or I or anyone else could buy materials for dirty bombs at Home Depot. But Saddam just didn't have the resources to do anything more than that due to IAEA inspections and other international efforts. In fact, he didn't have any technology or raw materials dating anytime after 1991. He was technologically impotent. Which means the UN's efforts, so belittled by the Bush administration in the ramp-up to invasion (as well as by revisionist neocon historians...?) had worked exactly as intended. So the "American Thinker" article is really a great example of precisely the distorted sort of ranting that it tries to claim is nobly contrary to popular sentiment but somehow true. But it's not true. It's simply bizarre."


I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here.  Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all.  A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons.  This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe".  First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him.  Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby.  Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report).  Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it?  In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program?  Does it matter?  After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD.  In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future.  How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD?  (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time.  From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active".  The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that.  But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003.  Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard".  Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003.  It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent.  Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence.  And why would an effort need to be "concerted?"  (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.)  Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program."  In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted.  ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition.  As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true.  Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq.  (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.")  Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003.  Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003.  But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003.  I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense.  And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

there are many stories about this yellow cake
this article claims the UN had control, there are some who state this was not even found until 2003 by Us troops
no matter there it is

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

far cry from nothing


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Zona said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. 

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. 

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997. 

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal. 

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs. 

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. 

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[118] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[118]

this is from the UN, not the CIA nor is it from anyone else
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in addition
The chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council on January 27 that large quantities of missiles and deadly biological and chemical agents, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, had still not been properly accounted for by the Baghdad regime.
 Dr Blix said Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration to the Security Council on December 7 had failed to address many of the outstanding issues raised in reports by the old inspection teams before they were forced to leave in 1998.
 There were indications that Iraq had "weaponised" the lethal VX nerve agents, despite claiming to have unilaterally destroyed the "small quantities" it produced after the 1991 Gulf War, he said.
 Documents among the few new papers released to the inspectors suggested there were 6,500 chemical bombs unaccounted for containing in the order of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents.
this again was not from the CIA nor anyone but Saddam and the UN
Why Iraq's weapons policy arouses suspicion | Mail Online

and there is the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that no-one seems to know when it was really found
For years, the media and Democrats have sold the public an understanding that Gerorge W. Bush fabricated a story that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program in order to justify invading Iraq, which invasion then becomes "based on a lie."


About 550 metric tons of yellowcake concentrated uranium were recently shipped out of Iraq.  It had been part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.  That much was recently reported by the Associated Press .  I wrote an article for American Thinker that commented on that story  the day it appeared.


That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003.  That was mentioned in the AP article and I mentioned it in the update to my article the day it was published.  In fact, American Thinker contributors Douglas Hanson and Rick Moran had written about that yellowcake stockpile years ago here, here and here.  Douglas Hanson reported four years ago:


"Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."


The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely.  But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all.  This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out.  As Investor's Business Daily more recently put it , "Seems to us this should be big news," but "the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years."


Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was.  First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia.  Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive.  It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs.  The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it.  It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents.  That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.


However, some readers have noted its "old news" aspect.  One wrote the American Thinker as follows.


"Of course there was lots of yellow cake in Iraq . Those news orgs you so dislike reported five years ago on how tons of it was just sitting out in the open in Tawaitha. It was so accessible that the locals were looting the site. Most of the articles at that time were critical of the lack of security from U.S. troops for the former nuclear development site. Please note the word former...it's pretty important since former was the word you could use in 2000 as well. Anyway, that isn't news. Neither is the fact that Saddam had delivery mechanisms. However, he did not have an active nuclear weapons program, unless one means the capacity to deliver one or two dirty bombs (which the yellow cake couldn't be used for, btw, because it is basically an inert compound). But even dirty bombs aren't a particularly scary threat, since you or I or anyone else could buy materials for dirty bombs at Home Depot. But Saddam just didn't have the resources to do anything more than that due to IAEA inspections and other international efforts. In fact, he didn't have any technology or raw materials dating anytime after 1991. He was technologically impotent. Which means the UN's efforts, so belittled by the Bush administration in the ramp-up to invasion (as well as by revisionist neocon historians...?) had worked exactly as intended. So the "American Thinker" article is really a great example of precisely the distorted sort of ranting that it tries to claim is nobly contrary to popular sentiment but somehow true. But it's not true. It's simply bizarre."


I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here.  Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all.  A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons.  This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe".  First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him.  Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby.  Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report).  Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it?  In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program?  Does it matter?  After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD.  In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future.  How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD?  (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time.  From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active".  The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that.  But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003.  Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard".  Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003.  It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent.  Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence.  And why would an effort need to be "concerted?"  (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.)  Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program."  In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted.  ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition.  As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true.  Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq.  (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.")  Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003.  Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003.  But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003.  I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense.  And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

there are many stories about this yellow cake
this article claims the UN had control, there are some who state this was not even found until 2003 by Us troops
no matter there it is

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

far cry from nothing


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Still willfully ignorant, eh JRK?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


I doubt the use of your sophomoric projection (taking your side's fault and blaming it upon your political opponent wrongfully) will carry much weight, Nic-Driver, with American citizens. The left cannot hide everything the Clinton State Department of 1997-2000 said and did on Iraq, although it's done its level best to omit and obfuscate everything they did. Concealing the evidence that Bill Clinton's State Department DID advocate and procure sanctions against Iraq by Madeline Albright is sooooooooo like convicted National Archives robber, Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton's recent campaign manager.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake
heres one that agrees with you

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?
and how do you explain all of those years no-one was in Iraq if anyone was taking care of this stuff?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> question
> if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?



Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

You notice how I completely ignore that other poster on this thread?

You can't fix that.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



From your linked article, JRK:




> [FONT=times new roman,times]The recent AP story was not news with respect to the _existence_ of this stockpile in Iraq to _those who follow such things closely_.   But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile  of yellowcake in Iraq at all.  This new AP story, and perhaps my  article, helped get that information out.  As _Investor's Business Daily_ more recently put it [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times],  "Seems to us this should be big news," but *"the mainstream media find  it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for  years."*[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a _huge and dangerous stockpile_ it was[/FONT]


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > question
> > if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?
> 
> 
> ...



thats funny
what is it you think I will learn from someone who is blind by partisan views? I put a link out there for you that claims that there was UN oversight from 91, part time at best

Nic you have so much to learn about life and what the truth on these events really mean

there 

you can go back now to your avatars that show mw as a loonie person and call me names
Its what your good at


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > question
> > if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?
> 
> 
> Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.


That's just not so, Nic_Driver. Do you remember how Saddam Hussein kept saying he was weeks away from developing a nuclear warhead to his Arab buds?

I do. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was horrified, I am certain about Saddam's arsenal of yellowcake, only the current U.S. State Department removed her notes on Iraq where her warnings about Saddam Hussein were prolific and specific so Obama can continue to blame President Bush for his alleged unilateral attack on Iraq. It wasn't. He went in with a 40-nation coalition against Saddam that eventually became an 81-nation coalition.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > question
> ...



Good for you, you're starting to learn.

Try a couple of other links and do a little more reading.


----------



## JRK (Sep 9, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



reading?'
what did I learn? that there has allways been WMDs there?
and no-one knows really when the yellow cake was found?
'The AP article he note claims it was found in July of 2003
I have not changed anything. If you took the time to read what was in that article and as I have been stating is that does it matter what story is really true? GWB was right. Saddam had this stuff and if it is the way you think it was then why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?
What I have learned is you think you have done something here
you have only admitted that we were lied to all right
by the UN and by the media

The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
to me its about the truth


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 9, 2011)

> The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
> to me its about the truth



Oh well, I tried and it did look like you started to do a little investigation of your own.  I really thought you could do it.

Like I've said before, I guess it's not really any concern of mine that you choose ignorance as a way of life.

Good luck with that...but know that I will still counter you're falsehoods if I so choose.

You don't have carte-blanche to lie, sorry.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 9, 2011)

Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.


Thanks for your service to this country and the free world, 9thIDdoc. 

Of course it's beside the point, but since the leftist State Department has gone to such lengths to obfuscate the Albright's State Department's involvement with Saddam Hussein (see my post to Sallow who has conveniently disappeared, above), they're just telling their webbies to blame Bush to go along with the current administration's schtick.

They have to do it or their unions will "take 'em out."


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

*If there had been any confirmation of WMD's, it would have been front page headlines. Get over it, it was an unjustified war.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.
> ...



*Was the State Department leftist during Bush's 8 years?*


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
> > to me its about the truth
> 
> 
> ...



Then go away
your a lost cause who is fine with living a life that is nothing more than what your told to live. Your dis respect for GWB comes from being told to dis respect him as well as the troops who gave it all in Iraq


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.



On all fronts
It cannot be more simple than that
After 9-11 GWB made it clear to Saddam and to the very people who elected him what was going to happen
That NIC and people like him are trying to make up some events that either never took place or have nothing to do with the facts
Saddam lied
He did live up to the agreements he had made
He was told to do certain things that he did not do
The simple event of the DOD going before congress in 2006 proves that and people like Nic thinks that has nothing to do with the invasion
Thank you


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *If there had been any confirmation of WMD's, it would have been front page headlines. Get over it, it was an unjustified war.*



Bull shit
there was over 500 munitions found that were WMDS and 550 metric tons of yellow cake
you cannot read?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
from the DOD to congress 2006


here is the yellow cake that never was there
nerve gas
etc....


Numerous sources are reporting that secret US documents released by Wikileaks have revealed that George W. Bush was right about Iraq having WMDs prior to invasion by US forces. However, the documents cited by the reports are not directly obtainable from the Wikileaks web site because of denial of service and domain shutdowns in the ongoing cyber war between US intelligence and DOD sources and the Wikileaks hackers and supporters.

Until now, any evidence of WMD and yellow cake Uranium has been explained away as low grade and in small quantities or just not pickled up by the mainstream media. However, Brian Murphy of the Associate Press reported in July of 2008 that the US secretly shipped 550 metric tons (1.2 million pounds) of yellowcake as part of a sale to Canada in an effort to keep it out of the hands of insurgents.

The Yellowcake was explained away as being left over from an Iraqi nuclear reactor that was bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and had been later was documented and inspected by UN inspectors. It was stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. However, it was after the fall of Saddam in the second Gulf War and looters started stealing the drums for drinking water that US forces seized the yellow cake and kept it under guard until the shipment.

Advertisement

Questions were asked as to why Iraq never tried to sell the highly valuable yellow cake when it was in bad need of money before the war, but that is where the Wikileaks documents provide the answers as well as more information about chemical weapons that has surfaced. They also are alleged to give credibility that Iraq did seek to buy more yellow cake from Nigeria despite the infamous claims of Joe Wilsons to the contrary.

According to a 2006 Wikileaks released report, U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, captured insurgents who were experts in the creation of toxins, and uncovered nerve agent chemical weapons that had been smuggled into Iraq from Iran. However, this is not the only source that is known of the agents. The Iraqis produced their own and used them during the Iraq Iran War, but they were supposed to have been destroyed as part of the cease fire agreement from the 1991 Gulf War.

These reports would also be in keeping with numerous discoveries of nerve agents and blister agents that Iraq possessed that they claimed did not exist and were reported to have been destroyed under the terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. In one case, as many as 14 individual 55-gallon drums of the agents were discovered by U.S. soldiers about 40 miles north of Tikrit. While some claim that 770 gallons of chemical weapons is not much, the fact that nearly 4 tons out of a total of 795 tons of nerve gas that was documented as being produced by Iraq is a major find.

When you consider that a few ounces of nerve gas properly dispersed can kill thousands of people, it does not take long to figure out that these agents were being hidden until the heat was off from the United States so that further development of delivery systems and use by terrorists groups could be made. The same goes for the yellowcake and the nuclear processing capabilities according to the captured experts.

Nerve agents are a stronger form of the same types of chemicals in bug spray. In fact, US forces sometimes train for nerve agent detection by spraying a short blast of Raid insect killer 25 yards upwind of chemical detectors to set the detectors off.

This is not the only discovery of Iraqi chemical weapons that has come to light. Several unnamed sources in the US military have reported that old news reports about a truck from Syria that was stopped inside Saudi Arabia by Saudi forces that contained several chemical artillery rounds did not report all the facts. They allege that the lot numbers on the rounds matched lot numbers of Iraqi rounds recorded in Iraqi records. These sources go on to say that there is credible proof that exists that Iraq sent convoys of trucks loaded with WMDs to Syria before the Second Gulf War and that these rounds were suspected as being part of those shipments.

No matter where one stands on the Wikileaks document dumps, the truth about Iraq's WMDs will never convince some people. Unfortunately, these are the same people still arguing over who is responsible for pulling off 9/11.



Continue reading on Examiner.com Wikileaks confirms other ignored reports about Iraq WMDs - National Conservative | Examiner.com Wikileaks confirms other ignored reports about Iraq WMDs - National Conservative | Examiner.com

Wikileaks confirms other ignored reports about Iraq WMDs - National Conservative | Examiner.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

Massive fail by JRK.


----------



## SofiaNotes (Sep 10, 2011)

I think the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not think it was a success...
sofia-notes.blogspot.com/2011/09/10-more-years-of-this.html


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

If only Saddam could have figured out how to re-fuel his Scuds in mid-flight he could have been a real threat to the USA.
Lucky escape US!!


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
> ...



Just how is opposing the invasion of Iraq disrespectful to the troops?


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

SofiaNotes said:


> I think the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not think it was a success...
> sofia-notes.blogspot.com/2011/09/10-more-years-of-this.html



To start with 100,000 dead Iraqis? 7 years 
thats not good, I would agree

lets see who else has that many people killed over the last 7 years
United States from 2003 thru 2010 115058 murdered
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009
16,528*
16,148*
16,740*
17,030*
16,929*
16,442*
15,241*

Now you can spin these things 100 different ways
bottom line is it looks to me its just as violent here as it is in Iraq
neither is good, but why is one the wars fault and the other is not?


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> SofiaNotes said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not think it was a success...
> ...



What were the crime rates in Iraq before the war?


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



thats not what I have said
The dis respect comes from using false information to justify that dis respect. You oppose the war thats your right
But try and convince anyone that your opposing the war and supporting the troops, when the troops volunteer to be there?
They by doing that support the reasons we are there
Straight up, I dont care if you oppose the war, thats your business
but do not try and tell me that there was no WMDs and that there was no yellow cake and that it was a failure when 62% of the Iraqi people voted in the last election
for what ever you oppose it for be honest to those sacrifices made and those desc-ions made based in the information we had then and the information we had now. Stop trying to spin it


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > SofiaNotes said:
> ...



According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

you want to try and defend this?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Were only soldiers that volunteered serving in Iraq?
Could they refuse to go?

It's perfectly possible to support your troops but oppose the reasons for their deployment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK is now posting red herrings, completely unimportant to the OP, which is fail.


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Then why is it that many on the left have no respect for me?
that kid has the same feelings about what he is doing in Iraq as I do, or he would not be there
He knew when he joined the marines that he would probably see action in Iraq


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *If there had been any confirmation of WMD's, it would have been front page headlines. Get over it, it was an unjustified war.*
> ...



*Why would they be secret? If you are using Wikipedia as a source, forget it, they have way too many lies on their files.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

wikipedia, on Iraq, is unacceptable, because wacks like JRK post lies on it.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> wikipedia, on Iraq, is unacceptable, because wacks like JRK post lies on it.



*There are outright lies on Wikipedia.*


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I've no idea...maybe because you judge someone's argument on whether it comes from the 'left' or the 'right' rather than on its merits?

Are you saying that everyone joins the army for political reasons?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



*Those who have opposed the war are the ones who really support the troops.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If you thought we had no business in Iraq, would you join?
in 2007 prior to us being told that by the way there was 500 metric tons of yellow cake over there and the DODs presentation of the WMDs we had found never made it to the National enquirer, much less the main stream medias programming
knowing you have been told Bush lied, people died
knowing that there is going to be a surge
why would you join?
Right?
Left?
who said anything about right and left?
Why is it when we discuss these matters its about left? right?
this is information


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK is posting mere demagoguery.


----------



## idb (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So you're saying 'yes', soldiers serve to support their political beliefs.

You were the one who whined about getting no respect from people on 'the left'.


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Whined? when did I whine?
Your confused bud
My point is simple
if you do not believe in something, why would go and take part in making it a success?
What say you, I am tired of debating with my-self


----------



## kaz (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK is posting mere demagoguery.



And you feel he's treading on your territory?


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK is posting mere demagoguery.
> ...



to start with Jake is on my ignore list, Kaz you quoting him is the only reason I knew what he said
I post factual linked information
If people do not like it they can do there DD and post info that will show mine to be wrong


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

Kaz and JRK want to insert their opinions as fact, and they are called on it every time.  JRK does not understand that his "facts" are not indeed incontrovertible facts that prove his point; actually, quite the reverse.

JRK has every right to run away.  Kaz, at least, stays to fight.  Congrats for that.


----------



## kaz (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kaz and JRK want to insert their opinions as fact, and they are called on it every time.  JRK does not understand that his "facts" are not indeed incontrovertible facts that prove his point; actually, quite the reverse.
> 
> JRK has every right to run away.  Kaz, at least, stays to fight.  Congrats for that.



You're not talking about "facts" though, you're talking about "liberal facts."  A liberal fact is any statement, no matter how factually untrue, which supports a liberal argument.  A "lie" on the other hand is any statement, no matter how factually true, which counters a liberal argument.  Which is the only reason your arguments work.  Every statement that supports them is by definition "truth" and any statement that counters them is by definition "lie."  Now that you understand liberal logic, go back and read your and other liberal posts and all of a sudden your inane ramblings suddenly make sense.  They are in fact irrefutable arguments.  By definition.  Any statement refuting them is a "lie."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

Kaz calls any legitimate disagreement "liberal facts".  Nonsense.  The fact is Shenseki said we need much more troops or we can't secure the peace: fact.  The fact is that WMDs as portrayed by the bushies were not found: fact.  The fact is that the Iraqi war helped to bust the economy: fact.  The fact is that the USA is not any more safer today than in 2003: fact.  The fact is that Iran and Iraq keep cozying up to us: fact.

Fact: JRK is a demagogue, and Kaz can't accept facts.


----------



## kaz (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kaz calls any legitimate disagreement "liberal facts".  Nonsense.  The fact is Shenseki said we need much more troops or we can't secure the peace: fact.  The fact is that WMDs as portrayed by the bushies were not found: fact.  The fact is that the Iraqi war helped to bust the economy: fact.  The fact is that the USA is not any more safer today than in 2003: fact.  The fact is that Iran and Iraq keep cozying up to us: fact.
> 
> Fact: JRK is a demagogue, and Kaz can't accept facts.



I oppose the war in opposition to both parties.  You oppose the war in a way that is self serving to one as a tool to harm the other.  Two parties, same policies.  The facts don't support that you grasp the facts and I don't.


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kaz and JRK want to insert their opinions as fact, and they are called on it every time.  JRK does not understand that his "facts" are not indeed incontrovertible facts that prove his point; actually, quite the reverse.
> ...



run away?
Jake your not worth the time and effort
Jake all I have stated is that congress voted in favor of attacking
we attacked
the reasons we attack were presented to congress in 2006 (DOD)
as a bonus we added some yellow cake in 2008

what so hard about that?
and why is it you feel you need to attack your fellow american?
go away, your not worth the effort JAKE
I wish I knew how to put you on dbl ignore


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

The facts clearly reveal that you are supporting an untenable position.

The war never should have occurred.  Are the dems, who supported it because they were weak then, still hammering the pubs for it now; you bet.

Both leftwing and rightwing progressive neo-cons started a war that should never have happened.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK puts me on ignore than yells at me?  OK.  But yell something makes sense.  Nothing you have argued to support your cause is supportable; they fall apart when examined.

You are nothing but a partisan rightwing progressive demagogue of a neo-con.  Go to, fellow, go to.


----------



## kaz (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts clearly reveal that you are supporting an untenable position.
> 
> The war never should have occurred.  Are the dems, who supported it because they were weak then, still hammering the pubs for it now; you bet.
> 
> Both leftwing and rightwing progressive neo-cons started a war that should never have happened.



And in typical liberal fashion you will agree to a broad sweeping statement that Democrats are to blame too, yet you will continue to use it as a hammer to get Republicans as you have done and continue to not bring it up to attack Democrats as you have done.  You have no conviction on the issue.  I hammer both parties with it because I do.

Obama continued W's Iraq policy to the letter and expanded Afghanistan.  Sorry the facts are inconvenient for you, but your insistence that you care about them and I don't is beyond laughable, it's pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

I am Republican, Kaz, while you are nothing more than a libertarian trying to influence GOP politics.

I don't need the right-wing progressive neo-cons in the GOP any more than I need libertarians, either right or left leaning.

You call me 'liberal' because you disagree with me, not because you can prove I am not a classical liberal, which all good Republicans are.


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

Its like I have said over and over
If you are against the war thats your right, but e against it for reasons that are real

Saddam lied
he had WMDs that were suppose to have been documented and destroyed, ones that the UN knew nothing about
There is allot of confusion as to the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that we know now that existed as to when it was actually found. Bottom line is before we invaded no one was really in control of it and this is why the post invasion date exists as far as when the US found it

There is still anthrax, nerve gas as well as 6000 munitions that have been documented as existing that never have been found


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

Bottom line is (1) our invasion was illegal, (2) subject the international laws of war, and (3) our senior bushies can't travel to parts of Europe.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am Republican, Kaz, while you are nothing more than a libertarian trying to influence GOP politics.
> 
> I don't need the right-wing progressive neo-cons in the GOP any more than I need libertarians, either right or left leaning.
> 
> You call me 'liberal' because you disagree with me, not because you can prove I am not a classical liberal, which all *good Republicans* are.



*Oxymoron.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am Republican, Kaz, while you are nothing more than a libertarian trying to influence GOP politics.
> ...



Not at all, NoNukes.  Many dems and pubs are great classical liberals.  Unfortunately, so many in both parties don't have a fucking clue what CL might be and why it is important to understand the philosophy.


----------



## kaz (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am Republican, Kaz



And I'm the virgin Mary...


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am Republican, Kaz, while you are nothing more than a libertarian trying to influence GOP politics.
> ...



none of that made any sense
none of it
and who cares what your politics are?
Pay your bills and do the right things I could care less

Policies will speak for them selves. We have seen that in the last 30 months


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am Republican, Kaz
> ...



I am truthful, and you are blasphemous.

ps: if you are the Holy Mother, I have a request.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 10, 2011)

SofiaNotes said:


> I think the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not think it was a success...
> sofia-notes.blogspot.com/2011/09/10-more-years-of-this.html



Aside from the likelyhood that the figure you quote is nothing more than a wild guess made by someone with an agenda, what is the point of combining the numbers of dead terrorists and dead civilians (many of which were killed by those same terrorists)? 
I don't know, and could care less, what they would think. I think our troops and most Americans consider it a great success. And they are correct.


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> SofiaNotes said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not think it was a success...
> ...



Let me add that there was more murdered in this country over the same time frame. Its all a bunch of spammed up spin
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009
Lets us not forget how many Saddam murdered also and you think the Iraqis had it bad killing terrorist'
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

it amazes me the left have found a way to hate GWB in so many ways, and ignore the real evil person who was in this


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bottom line is (1) our invasion was illegal, (2) subject the international laws of war, and (3) our senior bushies can't travel to parts of Europe.



(1) Untrue. Feel free to cite a law that you can factually claim to have been broken.

(2) Also untrue. There are no internation laws of war.

(3) Who cares?


----------



## JRK (Sep 10, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is (1) our invasion was illegal, (2) subject the international laws of war, and (3) our senior bushies can't travel to parts of Europe.
> ...



We are into over 100 pages of this debate and Mr ignore(I finally put him on ignore for that very reason) has yet to back up any of those claims, whats worse is he thinks there is some international agency the US president and congress has to go see before it can defend its borders
He and so many Libs just dont get it
Saddam did not adhere to UN Mandates
this is what congress stated was reason to attack, October 2002
this was officially put to bed with this event in 2006
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Its that simple, lets not forget the 550 metric tons of yellow cake in addition that all of sudden popped up in 2008 that according to some was not found until after we invaded. (no matter it was was not being took care of until the US went and got it in 2003)


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 10, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



*That was a joke, Jake, you DID say that you were a Republican.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 10, 2011)

An inaccurate joke.  Many pubs are classical liberals as are many dems.  Many are not, as those far from the far left and many from the tea party express coalition.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 10, 2011)

Off topic much?


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *

From one who regrets being an early supporter, I claim Iraq was a failure because we never should have been there and why are we still? Methinks it has more to do with internationalism and globalization then any grace to Iraq or the US.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 10, 2011)

And why do you think we never should have been there? Many would (and did) disagree. 
At the time I would have liked to see Bagdad become a radioactive lake on 9/12. We could have caimed they mishandled one of their own WMD's., saved American lives and a lot of money. Would have also sent a clear message to the terrorists in the ME.


----------



## idb (Sep 11, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> And why do you think we never should have been there? Many would (and did) disagree.
> At the time I would have liked to see Bagdad become a radioactive lake on 9/12. We could have caimed they mishandled one of their own WMD's., saved American lives and a lot of money. Would have also sent a clear message to the terrorists in the ME.



So what's your opinion now?


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...




your reasoning in the after thought is a very good reason and was in my mind as much as the why as all of the other stuff combined
in 2001 on 9-11 the world changed. We thought as long as it was over there we would be fine
cleaning up the mess Saddam had made frrom WMDs to yellow cake to the killing of maybe 1 million of his own people as well as having a base in the middle of that mess become paramount
Your thread is honest, I respect your feelings
This morning as I watch the horror that was 9-11 removing another mad man from this world was the right thing as I see it


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Only the fact that Iraq was invaded by the US on the basis of lies. Only the fact that Iraq is about as stable at present as nitro is at -40 degrees. Only the fact that that Republic will probably disappear the moment the boots of the last US soldier leaves Iraqi soil.

Bush bankrupted our nation attacking a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 and had no WMD. He failed to get the man that was responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. 

Go ahead, claim victory as you stand in the ashes of defeat. That is the 'Conservative' version of reality.


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> And why do you think we never should have been there? Many would (and did) disagree.
> At the time I would have liked to see Bagdad become a radioactive lake on 9/12. We could have caimed they mishandled one of their own WMD's., saved American lives and a lot of money. Would have also sent a clear message to the terrorists in the ME.



It was an option
One I am glad we did not choose, but the reality is that Saddam would have used one the second he had it after 9-11
People dont understand this. Saddam killed 1 milllion people, maybe more, maybe a few less
He had shown he did not care for the human race. Saddam had to go


----------



## idb (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > And why do you think we never should have been there? Many would (and did) disagree.
> ...



So it was purely a humanitarian action by the US?
Just like Libya?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> An inaccurate joke.  Many pubs are classical liberals as are many dems.  Many are not, as those far from the far left and many from the tea party express coalition.



A joke is a joke, accuracy is not important.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 11, 2011)

It may have had something to do with oil.


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> It may have had something to do with oil.



It may have something to do with the anthrax that has never been found
the close to 1 million Iraqis that Saddam killed
It may have to do with the lies Saddam had been telling the world
It may have something to do with the 550 metric tons of yellow cake he had control of
Oil?
Iraq supplies about 3% of the worlds oil


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 11, 2011)

America is interested in the middle east because of oil.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > It may have had something to do with oil.
> ...



Arguing that Hussein wasn't a threat in the middle east is a non-starter.  He clearly was.  The technology is the threat far more then the stockpiles.  We know he had them because he used them against Iran as well as in Kuwait and to murder his own people.  This is why I don't support my own anti-war "allies."  They have to keep going to this brain dead argument.

The reason not to do it is because we don't belong in the middle east at all.  We have to remove our troops and not be involved in every conflict.  Let them handle their own problems and let the Euros deal with it.  In that way we would have fewer enemies in the world.  Just because someone's a bad guy or a bully doesn't mean I need to challenge them to a fight.  But to argue that Hussein wasn't a threat because we didn't find stockpiles of WMD's is just frankly retarded.  You've got the right side, now argue the right reason.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> America is interested in the middle east because of oil.



Absolutely we are.  That's why we're not in places like Africa or other places with similar conflicts without oil.

The solution is free markets.  Open up the US to exploration, development and refining, let companies and not government deal with securing what oil they can overseas.  And let prices rise to market levels to drive change in technology and behavior.  It really is that easy.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



OK then, provide EVIDENCE that Saddam was suicidal.

Provide EVIDENCE that he preferred "terrorism" to taking care of his numerous women;

Provide EVIDENCE that Iraq granted Kuwait its independence

Don't come back with repugnant warmongering bullshit.

I want FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



My point is to first show that Saddam had the very things he said he did not have, he was lying to the UN
After 9-11 those lies were no longer acceptable

what evry-one forgot in this mess is the speech Hans Blix gave late Jan 2003. Saddam own documets shown he had 6500 munitions missing (we found over 500 of them) as well as a large stock pile of anthrax and nerve gas that as well as the 6000 munitions have never been found
It amazes me that the CIA and GWB said about the same thing, we remeber them (some do) as liars

This speech is the smoking gun. It validated the very things we had been saying as well as the finding og 550 metric tons of yellow cake

my goal has been to de bunk the lies

What no-one discusses is no 9-11 from deficts to the Iraq invasion, much of this is mute

The left used these events with the presses help to politically destroy the GOP. In retrospect it is a good thing, we got Obama and the country has seen what real change from the GWB years lokks like

there was allot of good decsions made with Saddam after 9-11. its sad, and I pray this world will find a way to live in peace
but there was no rash and un thought out times with these events 
Oil?
all Iraqs oil would have done was end the kick backs the UN was getting from the oil for food and drive the price of gas down


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'm a warmongerer who not only opposed being in Iraq, but I'm against being in the middle east at all?  What are you smoking, and can I have some?  Sounds like some good shit...


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I agree, but it doesn't counter anything I said.


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > America is interested in the middle east because of oil.
> ...



and create millions of jobs


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I agree to dis agree


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Which you're forced to ignore to continue with your falsehoods.

While I think you are innocent of the origin of the deciept (an assesment of your ignorance), your continued use of lies after they've been proven lies shows at least some level of deciet.

***For anyone who might be reading this thread and doesn't already know this, here it is again***

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

And;

Blix Says Iraq War Was Illegal - CBS News

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



We have less job workers today than in 2001 thanks to right wing progressivism.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You missed the turn.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2011)

YOur gun jammed.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Since 2001 government in addition to controlling the energy industry has massively increased control over healthcare, financial markets and the auto industry.  We added prescription drug to the medicare welfare program, increased payroll taxes, have the highest corporate tax rates in the left and have massively increased regulation on employers and corporations.  Which you describe as "right wing progressivism."

Oh, and you're a "Republican."  Then again so is Toro...



You're a couple of bozos...


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



*In a roundabout way, you are admitting it is about oil.*


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The war isn't about oil, the war is about terrorism.  But without oil we wouldn't be in the middle east and we wouldn't be the target of middle eastern terrorists.  We are between despots and religious fanatics, I'm not seeing a win in that.

JRK and the Republicans want to use the military to secure oil and then go hunt down every nut job that attacks us.  Democrats want to use the military to secure oil then sit there and let them attack us.  I am saying there is a better way...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You are such a fool.  To think your kind can competently dis Republicans.  You make a statement but make no connection.  The more likely reasons for the recession is out of control poorly regulated institutions throwing money every which way in the tech, dollar, oil, and housing booms.

Much more reasonable than your nonsense.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Right, that government is increasing control over industry after industry doesn't mean we're not deregulating and that as government increases control the economy tanks more doesn't mean regulation isn't good for the economy.  Oh, I'm a fool, you're a Republican, up is down and Barry is the voice of reason in DC.

Well, you are a hoot, that one's for real.  Mr. Goldwater...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz, those institutions in the first part of the first decade of this century were very loosely regulated.  You can't prove differently, because the last 25 years after Reagan was about 'privatization' and 'less regulation'.  So private prisons that are horror stories, private foster care that generally has been far lower than the state orphanages, outpatient mental care that turns lose people who have no reason to be on their own, and a war outsourced to Halliburton and others than helped break the government with their run to the gold.

No, you have nothing to stand on, with everything to pull you down.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 11, 2011)

kaz said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*The war has nothing to do with terrorism. Nothing to do with 9/11.

The better way is alternative fuel sources. Prepare today for the future.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Saddam killed 1 million people
Saddam had 6500 munitions that were WMDs according to the UN, we found about 500
Saddam had 800 ltrs of anthrax we have not found, according to the UN
Saddam had control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake until we inveded 2003
by the way, why did ethanol fail?
alternative fuel?
not about terror?

One more thing, the 93 WTC bombing was done by a man who was a Iraqi citizen

now what do you have to add tho that?
terror?
ot about terror

do your DD you would see that iraq supplies 3% of the worlds oil


----------



## Flopper (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


Yes you have.  Iraq like Yugoslavia was created by the Treaty of Versailles.  At the time there was a rather stupid idea going around that you can form a country by combining ethnic groups whose hated for each other goes back hundreds of years and they will learn to live together.  With the death of the dictator Tito and the fall of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia blew apart finally resulting in the bloody wars between Croatia and Bosnia.

Iraq is a power keg waiting to blow.  Sadaam's iron fist control held the country together.  Now you have a rather weak central government backed up by the US military.  Iran, the only real winner in the Iraqi war is committed to extending it's influence into Iraq.

I would hardly call maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq and sacrificing American lives to support Iraq in all internal and external wars a success.


----------



## JRK (Sep 11, 2011)

Flopper said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



62% of the iraqi people voted in there last election 2010
we will have at the moxt 10,000 troops there in 2012, maybe none
Those kids who went there by ther choice give there lives by there choice, for this country
your thread has nothing in it but an opinion
I am sorry you feel that way and ignore the facts as they are

Saddam killed close to if not more than 1 milllion of his own people
thats an iron fist this world has not seen
Hitler killed millions
I guess thats the iron fist you were to referring to


----------



## idb (Sep 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



62%?
That's way less than when Saddam was in power... BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'


----------



## idb (Sep 11, 2011)

It's a travesty that the US saw fit to remove what was surely the most popular adminstration on the planet!


> Saddam Wins 100 Percent in Referendum
> BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of votes in a referendum for a new term in office, official results showed on Wednesday.
> 
> Saddam's top deputy Izzat Ibrahim, reading official results at a news conference in Baghdad, said turnout was also 100 percent in Tuesday's referendum.
> ...


Iraq - Saddam Wins 100 Percent in Referendum with 100 Percent Turnout - 11,454,638 say yes, 0 say no

So much for democracy, eh?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



*So, you are denying that America's interest in the middle east stems from oil?
9/11 was done by Saudis, why did Bush not attack saudi Arabia?
You are denying that we need to head towards alternative energy sources. You are full of denial.*


----------



## sparky (Sep 12, 2011)

well folks, what say we dig this thread up in 2021?

~S~


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 12, 2011)

sparky said:


> well folks, what say we dig this thread up in 2021?
> 
> ~S~



*Good idea.*


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> At the time there was a rather stupid idea going around that you can form a country by combining ethnic groups whose hated for each other goes back hundreds of years and they will learn to live together.



It doesn't work in the US today.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



sing your logic then we did the right thing invading Iraq. The person who did the first WTC bombing in 93 was an Iraqi citizen
Denial?
There is nothing but information in that thread. 
Ethanol failed
Obama gave GM 50 billion of our wealth and the they cannot give the volt away still

What does Iraq suppling 3% of the worlds oil or have to do with denial, in fact i am a firm supporter of nuclear energy as well as the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up.

Understanding a liberal is so hard for us that live in realville. Stop an re read mu thread
its just information, thats all
how many people Saddam killed
Info on WMDs
how much oil that Iraq supplies the world

etc....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK continues fail in this OP: nothing new, nothing valid, same old rightwing progressive neo-con failed talking points.  Move on, JRK.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



using your logic then we did the right thing invading Iraq. The person who did the first WTC bombing in 93 was an Iraqi citizen
Denial?
There is nothing but information in that thread. 
Ethanol failed
Obama gave GM 50 billion of our wealth and the they cannot give the volt away still

What does Iraq suppling 3% of the worlds oil or have to do with denial, in fact i am a firm supporter of nuclear energy as well as the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up.

Understanding a liberal is so hard for us that live in realville. Stop an re read my thread
its just information, thats all
how many people Saddam killed
Info on WMDs
how much oil that Iraq supplies the world

etc....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK, you are making your readers' eyes bleed.  Stop the failed talking points and give us something.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > well folks, what say we dig this thread up in 2021?
> ...



I have no issue with that, I pray I will be here to see it


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 12, 2011)

(1) *No WMD:* We went in on faulty intelligence of WMD!

(2) *No Iran Polarizing Force:*Sadam was a bad man, but he created a polarizing force to the Ayatollahs in Iran! That polarizing force was deperately needed. By weaking Sadam in first Iraq War to save a very very ungrateful Kuwait and then knocking him out in Iraq II, we only helped the Ayatollahs in Iran nothing more.

(3) *Iran Victory:*Iran is taking over and is the main influencing force in Iraq. When ASSSSad in Syria goes down in is replace with an antiIran Sunni government, Iran will concentrate on Iraq. We created a perfect situation for Iran.

(4) *Cost of War in Dollars and Lives:*The war in Iraq cost 4K+ US lives and billions of dollars and we are getting nothing for it. Not even oil contracts!

(5) *Emboldened Iran:* Since the Iraq war has been such a long mess, even Iran knows we aren't going to do anything militarily against them. Not even a no fly zone, naval embargo, Kosovo style bombing raids. Nothing! It has emboldened our true enemy in Iran.

(6) *Iraqi Theocracy:* The fragile democracy is turning into a theocracy! It won't be long before the Sunnis, Christians (who are getting ethnically cleansed) and Kurds are completely knocked out of the government and the power is solely with the Shia majority.

(7) *Christian Holocaust:* Christians are getting slaughtered and ethnically cleansed from Iraq. They were a small minority, now they are nearly extincted!

(8) *Coming Civil War:* We temporarily stablized the country. As soon as we leave, hell between the Sunnis and Shia will take place. Shortly after that the Kurds will justifiably cause trouble by declaring Kurdistan independent. Heck it's run like an independent country now (own government, own border, collects independent taxes, own police force, own military, own currency etc). They are buying their time. US leaves, Sunni and Shia  civil war starts, Kurds leave!

(9) *Hotbed for Extremism:* It keeps happening. We fight to save Muslims (Kosovo, Lebanon, Afghanistan-Soviet war, Somolia, Kuwait etc) and they always become antiAmerican, antiWestern theocratic, Islamic hotbeds! Iraq will be no different.

(10) *Left Afghanistan Cold:* We were attacked by Afghanistan and that is the country we should have been blowing to pieces. It got ignored for Iraq.

(11) *Iraq lost us world support:* Now that 9/11 tenth anverisary has come and gone, not sure people remember the world support we had. Everyone and their brother was up for invading and kicking the shit out of Afghanistan! We had major world support on the war on terror! That ended with the invasion of Iraq!


Iraq will go down as a failed campaign! We provided we could go in and kick ass, but installing a government of our choosing is a failed mission! If we want to take out dictator armies so be it, but nation building is a tough task. Heck building a nation that isn't at war and has no terrorist or crime problems is a tough job!


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> (1) *No WMD:* We went in on faulty intelligence of WMD!
> 
> (2) *No Iran Polarizing Force:*Sadam was a bad man, but he created a polarizing force to the Ayatollahs in Iran! That polarizing force was deperately needed. By weaking Sadam in first Iraq War to save a very very ungrateful Kuwait and then knocking him out in Iraq II, we only helped the Ayatollahs in Iran nothing more.
> 
> ...



1) what do you call this if not WMDs?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
let us add this

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds *of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."
evidence-of-wmds-presence-in-iraq.htm
*
2 and 3 have nothing to back p what ever your trying to say, makes no sense

4) c*ost about the same the failed stimulus did and in the long run we will get all of that money back with bases being close in Saudi as well as far less money to support the UNs efforts there, a long time yes, but in time*
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News

5) Means nothing, see next point (its babble, your making no sense)

6) *62% of there total population voted in the last election*

7) you have proof? b*y the way Christians are getting killed in this country by the thousands also. more people killed in this country by violence than in Iraq from 03 to the present day*

8) See # 6, just opinions, #6 is a fact

9) one of the reasons we went there, it became a hot bed of death for those extremist
(fact) 

10) That war had to be fought out of Iraq, thats the one thing the left never got. We are doing exactly what we needed to do both places, (opinions)

11) *44 countries invaded with us, are you joking? United StatesUnited States*
 Iraq
 Peshmerga
 Awakening Councils
Withdrawn forces:
 United Kingdom (200311)
 Australia (200309)
 Poland (200308)
 Republic of Korea (200308)
 Italy (200306)
 Georgia (200308)
 Ukraine (200308)
 Netherlands (200305)
 Spain (200304)
 MNFI (200410)
and 30 other countries in the Multi-National Force

PLEASE DO YOUR DD BEFORE STATING IN ACCURATE AND UN TRUE THREADS ABOUT THIS VICTORY
THANK YOU


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK did not adequately address one of Ghook's points: mere, failed talking points.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


The purpose of the American military is not to invade nations that posed no threat to us in order to kill dictators and build nations.  We have now firmly entrenched ourselves in the Middle East.  When fighting between Iraq and Iran once again resume, we will find ourselves in the middle of it.

The United States can no longer afford, politically or monetarily to be the policemen of the world.


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 12, 2011)

I tend to fall on the right side of the equation (but not the Ron Paul side if you were wondering), but admitting a failed policy is a failed policy doesn't make you a leftist it just right!



JRK said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > (1) *No WMD:* We went in on faulty intelligence of WMD!
> ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 12, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Robber?  Oh you mean when he left there with copies of some documents by accident?

In April 2005, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and no original material was destroyed.

Sandy Berger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh and who on the left is trying to hide the children killing sanctions place on Iraq?


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Why do you keep saying that we are entrenched in the ME when we will be down to less than 10k people in Iraq?
As far as Afghanistan goes you really think Iran is going to stick there nose over there just so they can get it cut off?

Iran and Iraq is not going to war
they neither can afford it to start with and after 9-11 the world has enough ME crap
If we are to no longer be as you say we should, then we did the right thing by getting the UN out of that mess
It got us out of it also


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> I tend to fall on the right side of the equation (but not the Ron Paul side if you were wondering), but admitting a failed policy is a failed policy doesn't make you a leftist it just right!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what has failed here?
and I do support the fair tax


----------



## jgarden (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


*If I remember correctly, the whole premise for this war was based on the existance of WMD and Saddam's refusal to allow proper monitoring.

Stabilizing Iraq and creating a Republic were later justifications that the Bush Administration was forced to invent as face saving measures when no WMD could be found!*



> Document 52: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Lebanon [et al.]. "Department Press Briefing, March 30, 1984," March 31, 1984.
> 
> *..... It responds to questions from the press about U.S. policy regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and a department spokesperson says Iraq's chemical weapons use will not change U.S. interest in pursuing closer U.S.-Iraq relations.*
> 
> ...


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2011)

jgarden said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Try reading the actual resolution..... it will keep you from sounding this ignorant again....


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

jgarden said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Damn people

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."


Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal

How much WMDs do you want and as far as the UN goes, this is the smoking gun from Jan 2003
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
and 
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.
Iraq set tougher weapons test by Blix - Times Online

Now you have WMDs in the form of war heads tht were to have been destroyed years prior
you have yellow cake
you have anthrax that is still missing as well as 6000 war heads, etc... above

DO YOUR DD AND STOP REPEATING LIES YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

The neo-con progressive right wingers, like JRK and his supporter, have failed to make any sense.  We all know what is true and what is not, what is likely and what is not likely.  We all know JRK is engaged in mental masturbation, which can be a lot of fun but always, even more so in JRK's,  is sterile. and toxic, in JRK's case.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Robber?  Oh you mean when he left there with copies of some documents by accident?



Damn, accidentally shoved them down his pants and forgot they were there..



> In April 2005, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington. According to the lead prosecutor in the case Berger only took copies of classified information and no original material was destroyed.
> 
> Sandy Berger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Oh and who on the left is trying to hide the children killing sanctions place on Iraq?



You partisan hacks are something else.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The neo-con progressive right wingers,



Are those like Lassez Faire Communists?

ROFL

Could you be more retarded?



> like JRK and his supporter, have failed to make any sense.  We all know what is true and what is not, what is likely and what is not likely.  We all know JRK is engaged in mental masturbation, which can be a lot of fun but always, even more so in JRK's,  is sterile. and toxic, in JRK's case.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The neo-con progressive right wingers,
> ...



who wrote that crap?
Jake?
how can you report such slander?
Please do like I do and ignore him
I will lookm into seeing what I can do to get his slandering ass off of this borad


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> who wrote that crap?
> Jake?
> how can you report such slander?
> Please do like I do and ignore him
> I will lookm into seeing what I can do to get his slandering ass off of this borad



Ignore Jake?

He's one of the most entertaining posters on the board. He takes stupidity to lengths that Jim Carey could only dream of. He puts the "more" in moron....

Jake makes this board what it is!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored has just described himself, excpet he is not very interesting, but is normally wrong, just as JRK.

JRK is tied up in fits that his right-wing progressive neo-con imperialism and talking points have been shoved down his throat.  He attacks then cries when he is easily refuted.  He cries when he is made fun of.  He needs to grow up.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > who wrote that crap?
> ...



well I hate too put you on ignore also but you are not giving me much choice here
he is not slandering your name nor is he lying about you on a public forum
Jake, you might want to take the hint
"public"
"slander"


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 12, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Iraq was a threat after the support he recieved from the Raygun and the West.  Which is where he got the technology as well as the precursor chemical and biological agents to develop such weapons in the first place.  However it is simply not true that he was a credible threat even in conventional term to his neighbors much less the worlds remaining superpower.  Both Powell and Rice are on record saying as much.  Iraq was not a threat worth the life of one single American soldier.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Robber?  Oh you mean when he left there with copies of some documents by accident?
> ...



Like Bugs says "What a Maroonie!"


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*You just do not understand, we have to begin getting away from dependence on oil, and nuclear energy is too dangerous.
And, once again, why did Bush attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. You justify attacking Iraq because of one man.

Your info on WMDs comes from where? You are one of the few people who believe in this.Where were your voices when Saddam was killing these people, Saddam who was put into power by America.
Why are we not after these monsters in Africa.
Iraq is not the only middle eastern country that supplies oil. America's interest in the middle east is because of oil, period.
I stay away from realville because it is inhabited with your kind, and I find that boring. *


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



First what your opinion of what that soldier who made those sacrifices is non of your fucking business
That between that soldier and the sacrifices HE or SHE made along with the REASONS
not you! not Powell! not Rice!

Stock piles of wmds?
do you want to do this 4 ever?
did Iraq do the following?
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; *Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.
*
Iraq set tougher weapons test by Blix - Times Online

Please take note that the 6500 missing munitions is at 6000 now as we found over 500 of them after we invaded
From the DOD

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 &#8211; The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
*The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.*
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the 
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and last but not least
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

*The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

Please stop lying BOO
you being against the war is your right
telling those kids who volunteered to be there your against it is not
using reasons to support your beliefs that do not exist is not your right


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



But, that is simply wrong.
Why not follow your own advice and do some research rather than simply repeating untrue partisan talking points?

US Oil Production Forecast to Increase | HeatingOil.com
US oil production is forecast to increase in 2011 and 2012 thanks to more unconventional domestic shale reserves being tapped, the Energy Department says.

U.S. Oil Production to Increase 25% by 2016 - Is There a Way to Play It? - Seeking Alpha
According to the US government&#8217;s Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day &#8211; its highest level since 2002. The rise enabled a 2 per cent drop in US oil imports to 9.45m b/d, in spite of rising demand as the economy recovered. US oil imports have fallen steadily since 2006.


FT.com / Companies / Oil & Gas - US oil production revives despite offshore disruption
US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of &#8220;unconventional&#8221; extraction techniques .

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



no your trying to claim the war was not justified because non of the hi jacker's were from Iraq
My info on the WMDs comes from the DOD (department of defense)
the UN
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says DOD
the UN

What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.

also
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]

Also:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

There some who claim this yellow cake was found by the UN in 91?
If so the only reason we got it out in 08 was the invasion
Its nuts that GWB was called a liar by so many and that the UM never once publicly mentioned this mountain of yellow cake that at best was watched part time before 03, even if that part is true, and damn if was telling the truth more than the UN was


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Partisan talking points?
untrue?
what the hell have i posted that is untrue? the only thing worse than calling a grown man a liar is not being able to back it up, that is the lowest form of the human race
what the Un and the DOD and what we found in Iraq is not talking points
i*ts information
*

What is that crap about oil production have to do with Iraq?


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay are in decline.  Currently about seven hundred thousand barrels a day are sent to Valdez.  Since the administration and the Green movement have killed ANWR and any other oil fields close by, the pipeline is in danger of clogs and corroding due to the lack of oil flowing and the temperature.  Without some sort of technical cure to the pipeline, we lose it soon.
Call it PERMIT-GATE.

» Clearing-up Today&#8217;s Obama Energy Lies - Big Government
This afternoon the President of the United States tried one again to mislead the public about domestic oil production and how much untapped oil is left in the ground.  He said that domestic oil production is at the highest level in seven years and he indicated that American reserves are not adequate to help the US reduced its dependence on foreign oil. If Congressman Wilson was in the audience he might have repeated his famous shout You Lie.

Domestic Oil Production.
Obama commented that US oil production was at its highest point in seven years. That was both incorrect and misleading.  Daily average production of oil last year 5,361,000 barrels/day the best since 2005s 5,419,000/day. The real misleading fact about his statement, is that neither year is even close to levels seen only ten years before when production was 20% higher.

The President mentioned 35 offshore contracts were awarded, hiding the fact that off shore oil production has been way down since 2005, and that production took a big drop as soon as Obama took office (even before BP)

Source for both charts above the US Energy Information Administration.
Domestic Supply The President grossly undersold Americas oil supply saying that we only have 2% of the worlds supply. OK he didnt undersell, he lied big time. The number is Americas proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the worlds oil is clearly false.
A 2009 study by the non partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on Americas energy resources. It shows show the U.S. supply of recoverable oil to be 167 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of replacing Americas current imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years. And thats just the oil, when you include gas and coal, the U.S.  has energy reserves the equivalent of 1.3 trillion barrels.

On top of that there is more Oil to find. For example, in 2008 the US Geological Survey announced that the Arctic holds about 90 BILLION barrels of Oil, more than Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined about one third of the reserves are in Alaskan waters.  In the graph below the darker the blue the better the probability of Oil. In the map below the darker the green the more oil. The Dark green area between five and six oclock is in Alaska territory, which is just under 30 Billion Barrels of Oil. And just like anything else in this world, politics will play a huge part in how soon we can get to it


Oil Companies Are Not Using The Leases They Have.
The President said the Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent producing a thing. and he said he wants to encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold.
If Obama is telling the truth, those oil companies must be run by idiots, paying for leases but not getting the product out of the ground so they can make money. Thankfully for those who hold stock in big oil, it isnt that the oil companies are run by idiots its that the President thinks the American people are idiots and will believe that particular pack of lies.
A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to government red-tape, which has gotten more complected under the Obama administration, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal governments refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
The truth is, ever since Barack Obama took office the President has been making it more difficult to exploit our own energy resources, one of his first actions was having the Secretary of the Interior cancel leases to exploit our shale oil reserves in Utah. It seems as if President Obamas energy policy consists of making America more dependent on foreign oil.

Does that make you feel better?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> well I hate too put you on ignore also but you are not giving me much choice here
> he is not slandering your name nor is he lying about you on a public forum
> Jake, you might want to take the hint
> "public"
> "slander"



Jake slanders me all the time.

I just don't care. No one takes him seriously. He's a buffoon, a clown. Someone to be laughed at.


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So...if the the WH is making it so difficult for the oil companies why is production rising?


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > well I hate too put you on ignore also but you are not giving me much choice here
> ...



He is ill my friend
You are correct, I just will never understand it
people like Jake need help


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You brought up oil production and in the process demonstrated your lack of critical thought and regurgitation of untruths.
Surely that puts all of your arguments into question?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 12, 2011)

This works..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...s-book-points-to-saudis-and-bush-coverup.html

Covering up Saudi involvement.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



what un truths bud?
name them or shut up

you want oil games?

The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay are in decline. Currently about seven hundred thousand barrels a day are sent to Valdez. Since the administration and the Green movement have killed ANWR and any other oil fields close by, the pipeline is in danger of clogs and corroding due to the lack of oil flowing and the temperature. Without some sort of technical cure to the pipeline, we lose it soon.
Call it PERMIT-GATE.

» Clearing-up Todays Obama Energy Lies - Big Government
This afternoon the President of the United States tried one again to mislead the public about domestic oil production and how much untapped oil is left in the ground. He said that domestic oil production is at the highest level in seven years and he indicated that American reserves are not adequate to help the US reduced its dependence on foreign oil. If Congressman Wilson was in the audience he might have repeated his famous shout You Lie.

Domestic Oil Production.
Obama commented that US oil production was at its highest point in seven years. That was both incorrect and misleading. Daily average production of oil last year 5,361,000 barrels/day the best since 2005s 5,419,000/day. The real misleading fact about his statement, is that neither year is even close to levels seen only ten years before when production was 20% higher.

The President mentioned 35 offshore contracts were awarded, hiding the fact that off shore oil production has been way down since 2005, and that production took a big drop as soon as Obama took office (even before BP)

Source for both charts above the US Energy Information Administration.
Domestic Supply The President grossly undersold Americas oil supply saying that we only have 2% of the worlds supply. OK he didnt undersell, he lied big time. The number is Americas proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the worlds oil is clearly false.
A 2009 study by the non partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on Americas energy resources. It shows show the U.S. supply of recoverable oil to be 167 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of replacing Americas current imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years. And thats just the oil, when you include gas and coal, the U.S. has energy reserves the equivalent of 1.3 trillion barrels.

On top of that there is more Oil to find. For example, in 2008 the US Geological Survey announced that the Arctic holds about 90 BILLION barrels of Oil, more than Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined about one third of the reserves are in Alaskan waters. In the graph below the darker the blue the better the probability of Oil. In the map below the darker the green the more oil. The Dark green area between five and six oclock is in Alaska territory, which is just under 30 Billion Barrels of Oil. And just like anything else in this world, politics will play a huge part in how soon we can get to it


Oil Companies Are Not Using The Leases They Have.
The President said the Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they arent producing a thing. and he said he wants to encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold.
If Obama is telling the truth, those oil companies must be run by idiots, paying for leases but not getting the product out of the ground so they can make money. Thankfully for those who hold stock in big oil, it isnt that the oil companies are run by idiots its that the President thinks the American people are idiots and will believe that particular pack of lies.
A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to government red-tape, which has gotten more complected under the Obama administration, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal governments refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
The truth is, ever since Barack Obama took office the President has been making it more difficult to exploit our own energy resources, one of his first actions was having the Secretary of the Interior cancel leases to exploit our shale oil reserves in Utah. It seems as if President Obamas energy policy consists of making America more dependent on foreign oil.

Does that make you feel better?


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

Specifically


> the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up


He is not holding it up.


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> This works..
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...s-book-points-to-saudis-and-bush-coverup.html
> 
> Covering up Saudi involvement.



Sallow what lies did GWB tell?
same ones the UN was telling?
or was it really not that far from the truth?

where do you want to start?
yellow cake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

Th*e yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."
*

what next? WMDs
American Forces Press Service
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
T*he Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.*
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

whose lies were the worst, or were they lies at all?
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]
you keep telling me I am lying
this does include the 6500 munitions (6000, we found over 500) that the UN claimed Saddam had also


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I love how little idiot BlindBoo sends a mini-neg-rep saying this is nonsense.... when it is easily proven.... you see.. there was more than WoMD in the resolution

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

So... shut the fuck up idiot... you're pwned


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> Specifically
> 
> 
> > the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up
> ...



Really?

WASHINGTON  The Obama administration on Wednesday reversed yet another Bush-era policy, scrapping leases for oil-shale development on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
Only on msnbc.com
A day in the life of Irans president
Obama: Were not where we need to be
Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed
No promotion yet? Maybe you're not the boss' favorite
USDA bans six new E. coli strains from meat supply
How 9/11 changed Pakistan
It's A Snap! Vote for your favorite travel photo
Citing environmental and economic concerns, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar withdrew a proposal for expanded research and development leases and shelved a planned second round.
"We need to push forward aggressively with research, development and demonstration of oil shale technologies to see if we can find a safe and economically viable way to unlock these resources on a commercial scale," he said in a statement.
S*alazar rescinded a lease offer made last month for research, development and demonstration projects that could have led to oil-shale works on 1.9 million acres in the three states, greatly expanding the program.*
"I am withdrawing that Jan. 14 solicitation because in my view it was a midnight decision, and it was flawed," Salazar told reporters on a teleconference call from Washington, D.C.
He said he also is scrapping an initial 5 percent royalty rate on oil-shale production, saying the rate "sells taxpayers short." Conventional oil and gas production on public land produces royalties of up to 18.8 percent.

got to have pipelines sense new refinaries in new locales will not be permitted
Dirty Oil Sands | SENATE LEADERS RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT TAR SANDS PIPELINE


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Specifically
> ...



Same question as earlier...why is production increasing then?


----------



## JRK (Sep 12, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



Man nothing could be this simple
congress authorizes2002
we attack 2003
we show proof to congress that validates there (meets) there criteria (congress 2006)
We find more proof 2008, never is presented to congress as it is not needed


----------



## Sallow (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > This works..
> ...



The Bush administration told a lot of lies and tried to cover up Saudi involvement.

Doesn't matter..he's out of the white house and the damage to our economy, to our international prestige and our military has been done.

My hope is that this gets fully vetted and legislation is created to stop this from happening again.


----------



## Intense (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



How can you talk like that and not be up in arms over Libya Sallow? Pretty Shallow, dude.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?



Yes.

That's how the whole "legal" thingy works. 

The president + legislators determine what is legal.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 12, 2011)

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Gaddafi was involved in Lockerbie and the Arab league wanted him out.

The first reason alone is good enough for me.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> This works..
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...s-book-points-to-saudis-and-bush-coverup.html
> 
> Covering up Saudi involvement.



I went to your link, which said "The most damning element of the LIHOP story is that the CIA identified  two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, as  Al-Qaeda operatives and knew they had entered the United States months  before the attacks."

Did you know these two gentlemen entered the United States on January 15, 2000. President George W. Bush didn't even take office until 2001. Are you certain he did anything to "cover up" Saudi involvement?

My recollections is that not only did intelligence grill the Sauds, they pointed out to the Saudi Prince that donations from people in their family had given donations to charities that were sent to "missionaries" in Afghanistan who were uncovered as al Qaeda. That stopped all funding of Al Qaeda in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As a consequence, before Bush left office, the Prince lost 7 of his house (family) to terrorists who thereafter targeted him by taking out his loved ones one at a time.

Saudis paid a very high price for our friendship. This blame Bush book is just that. It bends and twists facts. I found that with just a check to see when these two morons entered the USA. When they entered, it was not on President Bush's watch.

It's another Get-Bush support to keep Obama's "It's Bush's fault" schtick alive.

Bush did not do what these conspiracy theorists claim, even though they wrote a book to support the little fibbie they were hoping they could pass off as true.

If all these things were true, it wouldn't have touched my little built-in smarm alarm. I have one because I read a lot about the Middle East and have for the past 15 years.


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?
> ...



And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



There is NOTHING illegal... It was a military action (not a war) that was legally signed off on... and no, there was more than WoMD in the justification...

So now we know you're an idiot as well


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Gaddafi was involved in Lockerbie and the Arab league wanted him out.
> 
> The first reason alone is good enough for me.


I agree with you on that one for the same reason. What I find unhappy about that situation is that over there, they have one fakir who set the bomb for Lockerbie in Libbya out for "reasons of health". He knows how to do it, and he could do it again in spades. That's worrisome to me. The man was not that ill, and he is well now, last I heard.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?



Oh? Were you under the impression that France and China had input on US laws?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.



> What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.



Who cares?

Here is a document that will shock and confound you, yet might explain the whole thing.

U.S. CONSTITUTION


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
> ...



Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws, but it's clearly OK to you that the US have influence on other's laws.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says that it applies to any country other than the USA.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


What if Saddam had 16 UN resolutions against what he was doing, idb?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Sorry Charlie.. we don't have some new world order where we have to answer or collapse our sovereignty.. what we did was legal and justified


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I'm sure everyone victimised by the US feels better that it was a 'military action' rather than a 'war'.

And some of the justification was that it was in support of the United Nations resolutions.
But...the UN never asked for the invasion (sorry, 'military action'), so how can that be a legal justification?


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



So, you're on drugs then?



> And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?






> Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws,


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


Saddam Hussein decided to undo the American win in Afghanistan in 2002. On the day America was victorious over al Qaeda and Taliban, Saddam sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul at midnight that night that removed over a thousand of them so they would avoid facing war crimes and other amenities of murdering thousands of people until America stopped them. The Jumbo Jets arrived a few hours later in Baghdad. We tracked them, and there is no mistake what happened after that. Saddam set them up in more camps near the airport and gave them full run of his land with privileges. He rewarded families of the 9/11 hijackers with remunderative amounts that are staggering when you think of the evil these murdering monsters did here.

The United Nations does not prevent countries from defending themselves from terrorists and criminally-bent haters. When the threat transferred to Iraq, that's when we developed a 41-nation coalition against Saddam Hussein which grew to 80 later on.

We had every right to stop Saddam Hussein from giving succor and power to these anti-American criminals, and we did. *His own people* tried, convicted, and executed him for war crimes he did.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.



The UN doesn't rule the USA, much to your chagrin, we are a sovereign nation. We operate under the US Constitution, which grants the authority to go to war to congress, which in the case of Iraq, made that decision. Bummer that US law doesn't meet with your approval. You can always try and impose your will with force of arms..

Good luck with that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You two are simply upset that I hold the mirror up to you when you begin your nonsense and you start screaming I am picking on you.  Oh, my!  Poor babies.

So, up to $3 trillion later, an Iran and Iraq that are chummy and not our friends, a broken economy, and you two want to talk about the merits of progressive right-wing neo-con imperialism?

And you crybaby to me.  Priceless, simply priceless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.
> ...



The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war.  We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch.  Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war.



Well, then I think you should personally enforce them. March right up to DC and arrest Obama for the Libya thing, he got no permission from our UN Overlords for that.



> We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch.  Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?



{Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; }

U.S. CONSTITUTION

You have to defeat the above document prior to your dream becoming a reality.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 12, 2011)

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan



> The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.



Bush's invasion was against international law and didn't have UN justification.

The authorization to use force had qualifiers, "If Saddam didn't do XXXX, then Congress approves the use of force."

Saddam was in the process of compliance when Bush invaded and according to the UN, the invasion was not authorized.

Saddam's cooperation with inspectors at the time of the invasion means the invasion didn't follow the requirements of Congress either and failed even that legal litmus-test.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.

Think so?  Soon or later, one of the senior Bushies will be stupid enough to wander into a part of Europe that is not going to give her or him back.  Most Americans will not support a war to bring back a war criminal.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war.
> ...




Really?

Did Congress declare war?


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Sorry, I'm obviously not high enough cos your point still went over my head!


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.
> ...



Try to follow the thread of the discussion.
It isn't that hard.


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Wot he said...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



YEP, you're missing quite a bit.  4,500 hundred dead Americans, more than twice that amount seriously wounded, and many more suffering the effects of PTSD; an economy in free fall, millions spent on a war of choice, and not one cent spent on repairing an aged and crumbling infrustructure here at home.

Yeah, you're missing quite a lot, but you're too dumb and too partisan and too dishonest to admit it.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.
> 
> Think so?  Soon or later, one of the senior Bushies will be stupid enough to wander into a part of Europe that is not going to give her or him back.  Most Americans will not support a war to bring back a war criminal.



And when a Marxist wins the White House and commits the same crimes, you call him Mr. Nobel Prize winner.  Yet a "Republican" such as yourself still only objects to the Republican who did it, odd...


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 12, 2011)

idb said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Idiot.. the UN is not the end-all-be-all world government that negates our sovereignty... that are set up as humanitarian and to settle disputes diplomatically when possible,,, they are not where the buck stops


----------



## idb (Sep 12, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



No...but if you're going to conduct a 'military action' in their name it would be nice to get their endorsement first, especially if you're going out to infringe on someone else's sovereignty.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 13, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.
> ...



*If you cannot see the difference between Iraq and Libya you must be a bit thick, or just filled with hatred to the point that you cannot see straight. The world is not condemning the actions in Libya. *


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*Once again, Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Why did the Bush administration change their reason for invading from WMDs to regime change, if the WMD's were found? Then they changed the reason agin to stabilizing the region because of oil.

I said nothing about the Iraq war being unjustified because none of the hijackers were from Iraq. You said this about the previous attack on the WTC. You either cannot read or comprehend, or you just babble on. 

If they had found WMDs to justify the invasion, it would have been front page headlines worldwide./B]*


----------



## ronok38 (Sep 13, 2011)

In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2011)

Kaz is not a hater, merely a partisan who is arguing with very poor material.  If Kaz thinks Obama is a commie marxist, then either Kaz is ignorant or mentally feeble, malignantly motivated, or simply playing out a poor hand.  I vote for the last.


----------



## kaz (Sep 13, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm a bit think and full of hatred for not supporting Libya because the world is not condemning the actions in Libya?



I don't give a royal fuck what the International Left thinks of Libya or Iraq.  I'd never support or oppose either for that reason.  I oppose both because I don't think the middle east is our problem and I don't think government has any business involved in securing oil supplies.

And you're a bit think and full of hatred so I'll point out that I wasn't just referring to Obama bin Laden in Libya, he has the same policies as Bush in Iraq.  I was pointing out that when Bush did it he was a criminal, when Hussein did it, he was a Nobel Prize winner.  The International left isn't just about left, it's about leftists...


----------



## kaz (Sep 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kaz is not a hater, merely a partisan who is arguing with very poor material.  If Kaz thinks Obama is a commie marxist, then either Kaz is ignorant or mentally feeble, malignantly motivated, or simply playing out a poor hand.  I vote for the last.



I'm ignorant and you don't know what the word "partisan" means?  I'm arguing with Republicans that we don't belong in the middle east and I'm arguing with liberals that they are supporting a party with the same policies as the Republicans they oppose.  And that's partisan, not supporting either party.

Maybe you have a point, you're not ignorant, you're just stupid.  Do you know the difference between ignorant and stupid?  Probably not...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand how much you fascists hate this, but the USA is a sovereign nation. 

We are not a vassal state enslaved to our UN Overlords.

Kofi Annan can go fuck himself - so can you.




> The authorization to use force had qualifiers, "If Saddam didn't do XXXX, then Congress approves the use of force."
> 
> Saddam was in the process of compliance when Bush invaded and according to the UN, the invasion was not authorized.
> 
> Saddam's cooperation with inspectors at the time of the invasion means the invasion didn't follow the requirements of Congress either and failed even that legal litmus-test.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh,



Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh based their positions and decisions on the United States Constitution?

ROFL

Jake, you are as stupid as a fucking pile of bricks.

Seriously dude.



> our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.



The "rule of law" is the US Constitution, dumbfuck.



> Think so?  Soon or later, one of the senior Bushies will be stupid enough to wander into a part of Europe that is not going to give her or him back.  Most Americans will not support a war to bring back a war criminal.



Goddamn but you are a stupid fuck.

Urban legends are fun, but those who believe them are stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Really?
> 
> Did Congress declare war?



S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq

If you weren't stupid, you wouldn't be a leftist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

idb said:


> Sorry, I'm obviously not high enough cos your point still went over my head!



I'm sure that most things do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kaz is not a hater, merely a partisan who is arguing with very poor material.  If Kaz thinks Obama is a commie marxist, then either Kaz is ignorant or mentally feeble, malignantly motivated, or simply playing out a poor hand.  I vote for the last.
> ...



Read what I wrote, huh?  I concluded that you are "simply playing out a poor hand."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

idb said:


> Try to follow the thread of the discussion.
> It isn't that hard.



Here's the thing Rev. Jim; the war in Iraq was authorized by congress. That makes it legal.

All the other bullshit you fascists toss out is irrelevant. The United States is not a vassal of the UN, the UN has no authority of law over the USA.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored is unhappy that I am comparing his nonsense to the nonsense of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and other dictators.

He wants to hide behind the Constitution as a shield from international law and reprisal.  That is simply stupid.

He finally managed to put Rule of Law with the Constitution, but refuses to understand the bushies acted outside of it, just like the dictators.

Uncensored should not believe urban legends that the bushies are safe from lawful, international reprisal.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

ronok38 said:


> In a last ditch effort, the marketing department decided to run a Sunday special with taco's and bean burritos at $0.29. The argument was that even if Taco Bell took a loss per piece on the tacos, incremental sales of drinks and other items would make up for the difference and turn the chain around.



It worked so well that Pepsico was able to sell the entire chain to Yum Foods a mere 4 years later at a huge profit.

"The Taco Bell" paradigm is required study for all economics students. Thanks for bringing it up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored is unhappy that I am comparing his nonsense to the nonsense of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and other dictators.



Unhappy?

Jake, I love it that you expose yourself as the complete and utter moron that you are.

Keep spewing the idiocy, by all means. Tell us more about Lassez Faire Communists and how Tojo based his actions on the US Constitution. I'm loving it...



> He wants to hide behind the Constitution as a shield from international law and reprisal.  That is simply stupid.



The US Constitution is the law of the land, stupid. 



> He finally managed to put Rule of Law with the Constitution, but refuses to understand the bushies acted outside of it, just like the dictators.
> 
> Uncensored should not believe urban legends that the bushies are safe from lawful, international reprisal.



You're a moron Jake, which is why you're so entertaining...


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You finally got it
congress sets terms 2002

Blix states Iraq still does not get it as well as lists numerous amounts of WMDs not accounted for with the Iraqi Govt not helping find them, many are listed by the CIA also

we invade 8 weeks later, 2/2003

The DOD presents to congress the proof that Saddam had not met the terms, 2006, when there is over 500 munitions found that fit the criteria of WMDs, 2 years later there is 550 metric tons of yellow cake flown out of Iraq
This was not needed but is additional proof that Saddam had not met the terms set forth by the UN as well as the US congress. 

I have been saying this the entire thread and you have called me every name in the book, you finally got it


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US a*nd the 54 other countries that invade Iraq* with the US

In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms

In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions

March 2003 we attack

2006 The DOD presets congress with the absolute proof that Saddam had been lying and that the 500+ munitions that had been found that were classified as WMDs had not been destroyed and could have been part of the total of 6500 that 6000 of those are still missing
Icing  on the cake came in 2008 when it went public that the US had took control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake after we invade
It is anyones guess who had control of it prior to the, but we do know that Saddam had control of it as late as 2003

Guys thats as legal is it gets and as good a reason to have taken Saddam out as there could have been
he was a liar
a murderer (over 800,000, maybe 1 million murdered)
and he had stock piles of WMDs that he was not suppose to have any, PERIOD


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...



That's not a declaration of war you idiot.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
> ...




Your wrong again.

Saddam's cooperation proves the invasion was illegal and without _*either*_ Congressional *or* UN justification.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



9-11 from occurring again?
allowing another Saddam?
I am all for both

You know what amazes me about the Saudis and your claims? we had a base in Saudi to defend them from Saddam that we closed after we invaded
Now are you sure that what you have been told and now your repeating is the truth?

and as far as the economy goes we had 5% UE up until the dems took congress and had a deficit of 163 billion with the last GOP budget
just information
one other thing
If we are so hated, then why did 54 other countries invade Iraq with us?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> That's not a declaration of war you idiot.



It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

{a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict}

War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hey, if you were educated beyond the third grade, you wouldn't be an Obamabot leftist....


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > That's not a declaration of war you idiot.
> ...



It's still not a declaration of war.

Do you even know the difference?  I learned that way back in the third grade, too bad the public school system failed you so miserably.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

> It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force _*to achieve a political goal *_against the nation of Iraq.



BWAHAHAHA!!!  A political goal?  Congress authorized an invasion for a political goal?  What goal is that?  To get Bush re-elected?

Epic fail there junior.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > That's not a declaration of war you idiot.
> ...




Let me add
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Nothing on your list was produced after the 1991 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. It is a mere fraction of the amount of mutitions that Iraq verifiably destroyed.  

One more time.  The Bush adminstrations claim was that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling new Chemical and Biological weapon and had an active unclear weapons program, not that he had a small percent of his former stockpiles that the weapons inspectors could not verifiy had been destroyed.

Early in 2001 both Powell and Rice proclaimed that Iraq was boxed in and could not even project conventional power against it's neighbors and had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs.

My opinion is that the threat that Iraq poised to the worlds remaining superpower was not worth the life of one US Soldier.  Furthermore I feel that the POTUS recklessly spent the lives of 4000+ Americans as political capital he garnish from the tragedy of 9-11.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Nah,  here see for youself.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Even if we hit the peek production of the 70's it would still be about half of what we consume.

It's all about cheap oil


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK and Uncensored continue running around in circles crying and sighing, whining and pining, cringing and whinging as they continue to have the mirror held up to their faces so they can see just how stupidly silly they are in argument.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



Actually, the neg & message was returned to you for your own neg and saying I lied without providing any rebuttal post.  Furthermore, the President didn't satisfy the conditions the Congress placed on him for military action in Iraq.  It's all right there in the text of that resolution, you should read it sometime.  Congress didn't have the balls to call him on it.

FU.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Let me add

The Federal Government's authority is limited to those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

But the scumbags who pretend to be Justices of the Supreme Court have allowed the federal government to become a massive welfare/warfare behemoth.

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Specifically
> ...



The Folly of Oil Shale - Reports Highlight the Tremendous Risks with this Dirtiest of Fuels | Bobby McEnaney's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Not to be confused with:

Bakken Shale Formation Oil - North Dakota and Montana - USGS


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

idb said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Don't know about that but doubt it will never be called illegal by the UNSC.  But then again we do have the veto power.....


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



There was no time table put on these weapons and stating "dont worry about those that are older than X amount of years"

Early in 2003 GWB proclaimed he had enough
Middle of 2002, congress proclaimed the same 

With respect let me explain to you the reason why we invaded, the "smoking gun"
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Ir*aq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was *demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] A*mong other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]*
He also (Blix/UN) had claimed there was 6500 munitions missing also
from the same day
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Ac*count for 6,500 missing chemical rockets;* Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.

all of this stuff is from the UN, not GWB, not from the CIA
when this speech was made, Jan 2003 GWB said thats enough

This stuff existed according to the UN and we have never found most of it, this was what GWB was trying to prevent
by the way you realize that Saddam had buried his fighter jets in the desert dont you, they were found


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and 
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

The Bush Administration signed on to SCR 1441, which had no military trigger, and breached it with the invasion and occupation when no new stockpiles WMD were found without which Iraq was not a significant threat to the US.  Certainly not worth the lives of 4000+ servicemen and women.  There was never any compelling evidence linking Iraq to 9-11.

Yeah simple.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



No one broke any laws
to make that accusation only shows your age, and you have to be smarter than that
Tell you what
tell me what laws were broke?
This is how far your argument got
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
[edit]


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



If the above bold text were fact based don't you think that President Bush would have used that as a reason to go after Saddam.  But despite the fact we controlled the air space over Afghanistan at the time why did we let them escape?


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Boo what you do not was there was so many legitimate reasons to go after Saddam why would you need more?
you under some assumption someone did something wrong or had lied to invade
Your dead wrong
The UN made the claim he had all these weapons and anthrax as well as nerve gas
come to find out he did have some and had control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake

And as far as the stuff we did not find, its kind of like the fighter jets Saddam buried in the desert
winds and tail pieces being exposed is the only reason we found those


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



The UN was specifically set up to:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Nothing in that document abrogates our sovereignty.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Are you trying to say that the UN super cedes the US constitution, the congress as well as the 2 other branches of the US government?
what  about the 54 other countries that invaded with us?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US a*nd the 54 other countries that invade Iraq* with the US
> 
> In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms
> 
> ...



Feb 14 2003. 

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. 

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner.


Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



No, I'm saying that the UN was set up specfically because of the scourge of war.  By not allowing the inspections that we agreed to as a memeber of the UN the invasion can not be justified and can rightly be claimed a war of aggression.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US a*nd the 54 other countries that invade Iraq* with the US
> ...



Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a January 27, 2003 address before the U.N. Security Council, B*lix declared that Iraq had failed to explain what happened to missing stocks of anthrax, weaponized VX nerve gas, and mustard gas-filled artillery rounds. In addition, Blix noted that the inspectors had discovered some 16 empty chemical warheads for 122 mm rockets that had apparently not been declared. Iraq claimed it had forgotten the warheads because they were in boxes similar to those used for conventional warheads. Blix also reported that inspectors had found "a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor" and a long lost document, finally turned over by the Iraqis in December, which showed that about 6,500 chemical bombs had not been accounted for, which he estimated would hold about 1,000 tons of poison gas.*

Before the onset of military action on March 7, Blix filed a 173 page document claiming that Iraq might still possess 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads, and pilotless drone aircraft. The report concluded that Iraq's anthrax and any clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene) stores would still be viable if they had been properly stored, and that Iraq could easily reproduce manufacturing capability equal to the scale of its pre-1991 production of anthrax and botulinum toxin. The report also revealed that Iraq had built three new genetic engineering facilities and had resumed research on high grade missile fuel.

In a parallel report to the Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a*nnounced once again that he had found no evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program at sites his teams had inspected. ElBaradei also attacked much of the evidence presented in recent months by the American and British governments to make the case that Iraq was actively importing items to make nuclear arms. 
*_finding 550 metric tons in 03 came from where?_
In his final report to the U.N. Security Council on June 5, 2003, chief weapon inspector Hans Blix emphasized that a number of questions regarding Iraq's disarmament remained unanswered. In more than 730 inspections covering 411 sites and 14 interviews with Iraqi officials, inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) were unable to verify Iraqi claims that stores of chemical and biological agents, and their munitions, were unilaterally destroyed. The report detailed activities undertaken by UNMOVIC inspectors from November 27 through March 18, including: the excavation of 128 R-400 bombs (of 157 Iraq declared it had destroyed) at the Al Azziziyah firing range; soil sample analysis at the Al Hakam dump site where Iraq claims to have disposed of anthrax stores; the destruction of 50 (of 75 deployed) Al Samoud 2 missiles; the destruction of two large propellant casting chambers at the Al Mamoun site; and the destruction of 24 chemical shells and the 49 liters of mustard gas contained in them at the Muthanna State Establishment. Blix also concluded that Iraq had been less than forthcoming about who supplied its dual-use equipment, particularly equipment that "could have contributed significantly to any missile development program." For example, in its December 2002 declaration, Iraq failed to explain the origin or the actual number of Volga engines it imported for use in the banned Al Samoud 2 missile.
Weapon update archives - index


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

> In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions
> 
> March 2003 we attack



What happened between January 2003 and March of 2003?  

What did Blix say about the 2 months you choose to ignore?

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk



> Blix said it was ironic that Jack Straw was so surprised by his report to the security council in March 2003, since it presented nothing new and that in a verbal summary of the report Blix had been positive about progress. He said of Straw: "I don't think anyone else took it as sensational. It was reporting on concealment and obstruction in the 1990s, but not much more than that."
> 
> &#8226; *He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite*. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
> 
> ...



A lot can happen in 2 months, especially when you pretend they didn't exists.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

> In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions
> 
> March 2003 we attack



What happened between January 2003 and March of 2003?  

What did Blix say about the 2 months you choose to ignore?

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk



> Blix said it was ironic that Jack Straw was so surprised by his report to the security council in March 2003, since it presented nothing new and that in a verbal summary of the report Blix had been positive about progress. He said of Straw: "I don't think anyone else took it as sensational. It was reporting on concealment and obstruction in the 1990s, but not much more than that."
> 
>  *He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite*. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
> 
> ...



A lot can happen in 2 months, especially when you pretend they didn't exists.


----------



## mplo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yes, imho.  

First of all, the removal of Saddam Hussein was not our business.  We should've let the Iraqis do it, if they'd wanted to.  

Secondly, we (the United States Govt.) *de*stabilized the country, as opposed to stabilizing it.

Thirdly, we destroyed Iraq by ripping it asunder, bankrupted our country, have refused to prosecute Cheney and G. W. Bush for getting us into Iraq in the first place, and have maimed, killed, and sickened untold numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention thousands of our own men and women GI's.

The United States' debacle in Iraq is also proof that attempting to impose a Western-style Democracy on a country that's been held together by a tyrant just simply doesn't work.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> It's still not a declaration of war.



There will never be another formal declaration of war. What was granted meets the criteria of the "war powers act" and is sufficient for legal engagement.



> Do you even know the difference?  I learned that way back in the third grade, too bad the public school system failed you so miserably.



Too bad you didn't make it past third grade.

Of course, that's why you're a leftist.

Remember, the lower the IQ, the further to the left. It's a fundamental truth in life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> BWAHAHAHA!!!  A political goal?  Congress authorized an invasion for a political goal?  What goal is that?  To get Bush re-elected?



I think the term was "regime change" sparky.

BUT maybe Hillary Clinton voted to get Bush re-elected.

Or maybe you just haven't thought this through..



> Epic fail there junior.



I see that, sparky.


----------



## jgarden (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


*"JRK;3396617" is either in deep denial OR using USMESSAGEBOARD Forums to get his "15 minutes of fame!"

In either case, he isn't worst the expenditure of one brain cell!*


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions
> >
> > March 2003 we attack
> 
> ...



I did not ignore anything
the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing
Saddam had-had years and at the end of those years the UN still does not know were all of this stuff is?
It was over
Prisoner? what about the 54 other countries?
i dont care if he described the war as hot dog buns, he is not a US congressmen nor a senator nor the president


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > BWAHAHAHA!!!  A political goal?  Congress authorized an invasion for a political goal?  What goal is that?  To get Bush re-elected?
> ...



It is illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.

Where did you get the idea that it was ok?

Oh, and an Authorization to Use Force its still not a Declaration of War.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

> the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing



The word "If" in the Authorization to Use Force says it means everything.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> It is illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.



Really?

Can you point out the section or amendment of the US Constitution that states such?

I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?



> Where did you get the idea that it was ok?
> 
> Oh, and an Authorization to Use Force its still not a Declaration of War.



It's as close as we will see in our lifetimes. Political correctness ensures that war will never again be declared. But of course, it is a war, and that is what congress authorized.

Serious question, why do you think Obama hasn't ceded sovereignty and declared the USA to be subjects of the UN? This is obviously the desire and goal of the left, so why didn't Obama with the Super Majority of the extreme left he enjoyed a year ago, just do it? Then there would be no question, the security council could arrest Bush, and break up Tea Parties, why did the left squander the opportunity to change the nation into something more to their liking?


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> i dont care if he described the war as hot dog buns, he is not a US congressmen nor a senator nor the president.........



........nor a retard

We Knew Iraq Was Disarmed

by Jude Wanniski


In watching the Sunday talk shows today I was astonished at how everyone  interviewers and guests  seems to have forgotten that in the last month before President Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq it was clear we all should have known Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I'm posting below a memo I ran in this space 30 days before the war began entitled, "Finally, A Disarmed Iraq." When everyone who supports the war continues to say that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD, including the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc. That is true only BEFORE the UN inspectors returned and spent months going over all the possibilities. A full month before the President decided that diplomacy had failed, Baghdad addressed the only issue still outstanding on the UNMOVIC and IAEA report cards: Proving the negative. 

We Knew Iraq Was Disarmed by Jude Wanniski

.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Boo you have your opinion, I have no desire to change that
War of aggression? if you say so. 
The inspections became mute when Blix stated that all of that "stuff' was still missing
Powell and others claimed it was being moved, time had run out

looks like now he was right. You want keep tooting the horn that states the US/GEB did something wrong'
have at it
Legally your wrong as this has all ready went to court in this country
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[5


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?



The Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which says :

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land_


and the US is a signatory to the UN Treaty. Which is why George W Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to authorise the invasion. When one wasn't forthcoming he claimed he didn't need one and that it wasn't a question of whether he had the authority to invade but simply a question of having the will to do it.

The UN considered the invasion illegal :

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Apparently I can't post a link to the last quote but if you google it you'll get there.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing
> 
> 
> 
> The word "If" in the Authorization to Use Force says it means everything.



to whom?
Nic you keep involving the UN as when it comes to the legality of it they had a say so
If became verified
I am not sure what your trying to say

International law? of course there was 54 other countries who invaded with us
would they not be as guilty as you think we are?

Its all ready passed the legal test in the US, it got thrown out of court out of the gate before we even invaded


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?
> ...



So your trying to say that this clause over-rides the US congress?
this matter has been to court in the US by the way, and there is no mention of this supremacy clause
would you mind explaining that?

never mind

Supremacy Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of America


This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I · II · III · IV · V
VI · VII · VIII · IX · X
Subsequent Amendments
XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV
XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · XX
XXI · XXII · XXIII · XXIV · XXV
XXVI · XXVII
Unratified Amendments
I(1) · XIII(1) · XIII(2) · XX(1) · XXVII(1) · XXVII(2)
Other countries ·  Law Portal
view · talk · edit
Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, known as Supremacy of National Law , establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

you want to try that again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> and the US is a signatory to the UN Treaty. Which is why George W Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to authorise the invasion. When one wasn't forthcoming he claimed he didn't need one and that it wasn't a question of whether he had the authority to invade but simply a question of having the will to do it.
> 
> The UN considered the invasion illegal :



UN resolutions are not ratified treaty. If they were, the stars and stripes would have been put down decades ago. 

We have an obligation to engage in negotiations with the UN per the charter. We did not cede sovereignty, regardless of how desperately you wish it were so.  



> The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.



Fuck Kofi Annan, Crooked little shithead is a criminal who mourns the loss of embezzlement of "oil for food funds." 



> Apparently I can't post a link to the last quote but if you google it you'll get there.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.



WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.
> ...



*There is so much desperation from the bushites  to make this war look as a success and I will never understand why*

.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.
> ...



The main Shiite groups that won the 2005 and 2007 elections and went on to run the government with the Kurds were all formed into a single ticket by the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani and are:

The Al-Dawa (Islamic Mission) party.

This is Prime Minister Maliki's party. The Dawa party have a fine democratic tradition of car bombings, airplane hijackings and blowing up buildings, most notably the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. Saddam's regime for some reason called them an Iranian-backed terrorist group, probably due to all the bombings they carried out in Iraq. They operated from Iranian territory where Maliki spent most of his time apart from a few years in the Dawa Damascus office helping the forerunners of Hezbollah start their operations during the Lebanese civil war.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, having got their Islamic revolution in Iraq. These guys fought for Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, their Badr military wing was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and lots of its current members, now officers in the Iraqi security forces, were Iranian Revolutionary Guard members and still receive pensions from the IRG. Here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about these guys back when we invaded :

_Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the

direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."_





And the third group, who need no introduction, are the Sadrists, peace be upon them.


So are you seriously OK with these terrorists running the government in Baghdad?


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...




I like your use of links with this information. I also would like to commend you on comparing your opinion as to what the govt. in Iraq looks like while leaving out its what the people of Iraq voted for
you know the word vote. As someone had said in this link before, Saddam use to get 100% of the vote
If the Iraqi people wanted the govt you claim they have, then so be it


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



your the same dude that tried to fly the supremacy clause in there
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 13, 2011)

kaz said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



*This makes no sense.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US a*nd the 54 other countries that invade Iraq* with the US
> 
> In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms
> 
> ...



*Why was this not front page news? Why did Bush change the reason why we invaded Iraq? You have a problem answering questions, you just post garbage from Wikipedia./B]*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *This makes no sense.*



The hypocrisy of you leftists?

True, it makes no sense at all. But you of the left serve an agenda, not reason.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US a*nd the 54 other countries that invade Iraq* with the US
> ...


*

No I post facts
And as far as why the media has not covered any of this and why you think GWB changed the reason we invade I do not know
I have never heard him change the reason and I read his book*


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The reason the UN was formed is not an opinion.

Based on the fact that the Bush administration signed on to SCR 1441 and then disregarded it when it became obvious that the UN was not going to produce a resolution authorizing military action it is my opinion that the Iraqi invasion and occupation was a war of aggression.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Look you can have it your way
I mean no dis respect
Saddam was an evil, very evil person
the world is better off without him


----------



## idb (Sep 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored is unhappy that I am comparing his nonsense to the nonsense of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and other dictators.
> ...



Remind me when it also became the law of the land in Iraq?


----------



## idb (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So, essentially, your argument is that the ends justified the means...it took a while but we got there at last.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 13, 2011)

idb said:


> Remind me when it also became the law of the land in Iraq?



Iraq didn't get a vote on the issue.

How to deploy the US Military is the jurisdiction of US law.

Those of you dreaming of a global dictatorship have a long wait.


----------



## JRK (Sep 13, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



no my argument is that the media stopped reporting the story in 2004
my argument is that WMDs were found
My argument has always been Saddam did not cooperate and it cost him his life
My argument has been and always has been that the yellow cake under Saddams control was there and we got rid of it

My argument was not pointed at you any-way
your opinion is just that, your opinion
dont confuse me respecting your opinion with confusing with me who will never allow the lies to go on around me
let us review

2002
congress approves the use of force If Saddam does not cooperate with the UN
Jan 2003 Hans Blix of the UN make speech that Iraq has not accepted the andate to dis arm
that 6500 munitions have been documented to exist, are never found (500+ are, see later)
anthrax and nerve gas 
we invade 2003, march
@006 the DOD provides the proof that Saddam had over 500 munitions that met the classification of WMD
2008 it becomes public that there is also 550 metric tons of yellow cake we have found

Stop being a pin head,


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...


----------



## Hoot (Sep 13, 2011)

I suggest all of you read the book "The Prosecution of GW Bush For Murder," by Vincent Bugliosi.  (Famed L.A. prosecutor who wrote the book "Helter Skelter" based on the Charles manson murders, and "Outrage," how OJ Simson got Away With Murder...besides many more great reads such as "How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President.")

Mr. Bugliosi presents an iron clad case, based on established case law, detailing the lies and distortions of the Bush administration in their attempt to justify war with iraq.

There were no wmd found in Iraq. ( Old worthless goo from the Iran/Iraq war) Saddam was in full compliance with UN inspectors at the time of our invasion.  There was no need for this war..a war which has cost us a good $1.5 trillion dollars and and a good 6,000 of our soldiers killed, not to mention the 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies killed

Why not ask Bush, Cheney and Rice why they can't travel to Europe anymore?

Can you all say 'War Crimes at the Hague?'

You ditto heads make me sick in your lame attempts to justify the Iraq war.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I can@t post links because i don't have 15 posts. You can google anything i posted and find them yourself though. this isn't my opinion about iraq's government, it's all factual stuff. For instance, Prime minister maliki's party really did blow up the US embassy in kuwait in 1982. That's a fact, not opinion. And as far as Iraqi people voting for them goes, here's my question to you:

If in the runup to the war Americans had been asked whether they'd be happy to go into debt for two trillion dollars to invade a country which would then elect a government made up of Iranian-backed terrorist groups that had committed terrorist acts against America, and then spend the lives of thousands of troops to fight and die to keep them in power (with tens of thousands wounded), do you think Americans would have supported the invasion?


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 13, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 13, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."



It is really a shame that the low life motherfucker will not be arrested , taken before the International Court of Justice , given a fair trial then promptly executed.

.


----------



## idb (Sep 13, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Your timeline misses out the bit where the UN confirms that Saddam has not been co-operating and and asks the US to invade.
They had no UN mandate despite their claim.

Go on, call me another name.


----------



## jgarden (Sep 14, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


*With all due respect, its not my job to research and justify your position.  

If I have a point to make, I'll research it and provide references, BUT its the height of arrogance for you to expect your opponent to do reseach your position too!*


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2011)

Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?

Because we spent a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > *This makes no sense.*
> ...



*This makes no sense either, just bullshit.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > It is illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.
> ...



*There are higher laws than the American Constitution.*


----------



## sparky (Sep 14, 2011)

....and there's sorts that think they're above them as well.....~S~


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I called you a name because you jumped in the middle of a conversation that had nothing to do with you
You attempted to make it appear I had done something beyond saying to the person I was talking to we had reached a point in where it was time to agree to dis agree
Now to your "point" about Iraq cooperating
this mess began in 1991, with weapon bans in 1997

This was 1-27-2003
It was thje straw that broke the camals back, we invaded less than 8 weeks later

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that *"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical *agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It's hardly a private conversation when you post it on a message board.

Where was the UN resolution for invasion?
After all, Iraq's apparent flouting of the UN resolutions one of the main US justifications.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> 
> Because we spent a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran.



The 4000 women and men who sacrificed there Lives did it because they felt it was the right thing to do. *Who are you to question that?*
as far as the money goes, BHO failed stimulus cost as much as the IRAQI war
WMDs gone
yellow cake gone
A man who had killed over 1 million people, gone
Lied to the world when he was given 100s of chances


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Its hardly accurate to respond to a thread not directed at you.
The "flouting" as you put it had allot to do with the confirmation that US and British Intel was accurate and that there are some who claimed then and today those weapons were being moved
The US congress gave resolution to invade. Its all this country will ever need


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



Is this private?
Wouldn't it be tragic if the 4,000 people were deceived and died for a false cause?


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



No, they used the UN as justification as well but had no mandate from them.
So, does the US only belong to the UN to provide legal backing for it's meddling in other sovereign nations' affairs (which it was unable to attain in this case)?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Chris said:


> Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> 
> Because we spent a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives to set up a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran.



Well shit, we spent $4 trillion dollars to put unemployment at 9.2% and set the USA into a double dip recession, yet you think Obama is god!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *This makes no sense either, just bullshit.*



It makes perfect sense. You lack the capacity to reason, ergo you chant partisan slogans.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *There are higher laws than the American Constitution.*



No, there certainly are not. Your desire for global dictatorship does not alter the nature of American jurisprudence.


----------



## konradv (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



The take-away message seems to be, those that thought invading Iraq was a good idea rank right up there with the people that think Obama is God.  Is that what you're telling us?!?!  If not, why use it as justification?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yeah the waste of money in Iraq shows republicans don't care about wasteful spending, and the stimulus shows democrats don't care about wasteful spending.  So when either side uses $ as their excuse for being against something, I can't help but laugh.

Both sides just want to have their brains taxed out and their gov't to spend kajillions on whatever big government project they've been told to love.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You know those 4000 kids dont think they were lied to
You have no right questioning those kids courage
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT
You dont like GWB, thats your cross to bear. Those kids knew what they were getting into when they volunteered
LET IT GO
ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
THAT WAS THERE CHOICE, RESPECT IT OR SHUT UP


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The term waste when it comes to IRAQ is an opinion, you should treat as such
The weapons 
The killing
The lying is gone

and just how much did we really waste?
how much less is the UN getting now that we finished that mess
and how much money are we saving by closing bases like the one in Saudi?
Defense.gov News Article: Saudi Base to Close, Ops Center Moves to Qatar

No longer existent:
Camp Doha (closed in 2006, forces and equipment distributed among Camps Arifjan and Buehring)
Camp Navistar(closed 2007)
Camp New Jersey (closed in 2004) Combined to become part of Camp Virginia
Camp New York (closed in 2004, reactivated and deactiviated several time since.)
Camp Pennsylvania (closed in 2004)
Camp Victory (closed in 2006)
Camp Wolverine (closed in 2004)
Camp Maine (closed in 2003)
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

now do your DD on these matters and maybe you will learn something


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



No WMDs as described, no yellow cake as described, a broken economy, and you are too slimy to even mention the 4000 plus heroes, JRK.  Pull your tongue out please before you even think of doing it again.  To use their deaths for your sick ends is beyond just pathetic, it is evil.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Iraq was never the least bit of a threat, if you think it was you have a sad opinion of our military.  So I don't give a damn how many super soaker 3000's they had, I don't give a damn about the UN and their sanctions or regulations.

Saddam killing his own people isn't a concern of the US gov't or the responsibility of the US taxpayer, I know I sound like a super meanyhead saying that but if we actually gave a damn about that we wouldn't ally ourselves with similar monsters like those running Saudi Arabia.

Even your neocon heros admit the mile long list of mistakes in Iraq, a shame you can't.  Even O'Reilly says we should've never gone, he's spot on.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> The take-away message seems to be, those that thought invading Iraq was a good idea rank right up there with the people that think Obama is God.  Is that what you're telling us?!?!  If not, why use it as justification?



I'm just noting the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> The term waste when it comes to IRAQ is an opinion, you should treat as such The weapons  The killing The lying is gone



Eight Facts About Iraq

by Laurence M. Vance

*Iraq was not a threat to the United States*. Although Bushs initial justification for war was that Iraq was a "threat to the United Nations" (certainly no reason for the U.S. to go to war), this was soon shifted to Iraq being a threat to the United States. But even though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that "no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," the condition of Iraq said otherwise. Iraq had no navy or air force. Iraqs economy was in ruin after a decade of sanctions  sanctions that destroyed its water supplies. The GNP of Iraq was not even 15 percent of that of the state of Washington. The only time in history when Iraq did actually attack the United States  an Iraqi warplane attacked a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf in 1987 resulting in the killing of dozens of U.S. sailors  we did nothing because Iraq apologized for its "mistake." No, the greatest threat to freedoms of the American people is not Iraq. The greatest threat to the freedoms of the American people is not some country six thousand miles away; it is our own government. How is it that in a country with such a heritage of individual liberty like the United States, one can smoke in a restaurant in Baghdad, but not in Manhattan? How is it that in a country with a Christian heritage like the United States, one can buy a gun in Baghdad, but not in Washington D. C.? If Iraqs neighboring countries did not feel the need to send troops to Baghdad, then why did we?

Eight Facts About Iraq by Laurence M. Vance

.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Iraq was never a threat is very correct, Saddam is gone
our military has nothing to do with the events that began after 9-11 and ended in march of 2003
Your opinion is just that, My intent has never been to change anyones
Let me add allot of those opinions are based on false, in accurate and 1/2 truths when it comes to info
does not matter
 have offered a factual history and the success the war has become
thats all
your against it, you think it failed, you think a man who murderd 1 million of his own people that had a citizen blow up the WTC in 1993, who was sitting on 550 metric tons of yellow cake, who buried his fighter jets and lied about it, who had enough anthrax to kill 100s of thousands, who had 6500 munitions that only 500 or so have been found, who did not bury it? but buried his fighter jets, who was such a threat we had to have troops in Saudi and Kuwait until we invaded
You think?
No threat huh?
you and Riley keep on keeping on
But there it is


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK  
Registered User
Member #28394   



> Iraq was never a threat is very correct



Thank you for finally admitting what we all already knew.

Well done!


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK
> Registered User
> Member #28394
> 
> ...



your a paid spammer
i always knew it and you just give yourself away
never mis quote me again
Iraq was never a threat is very correct, Saddam is gone
*THATS WHY IRAQ IS NEVER A THREAT ANY-MORE
Saddam is gone
dont you ever take one of my quotes out of context again, you cannot deal with the truth so be it
LET IT GO, DONT NEVER DO IT AGAIN*


----------



## konradv (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > The take-away message seems to be, those that thought invading Iraq was a good idea rank right up there with the people that think Obama is God.  Is that what you're telling us?!?!  If not, why use it as justification?
> ...



Yeah, YOU.


----------



## konradv (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Who questioned their courage or their decision to go?  You're turning this into something it isn't.  You're right that it's GWB cross to bear.  Lamenting the 4,000 in no way shows disrespect towards the troops.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> Yeah, YOU.



Sigh;

You didn't actually think that was clever, did you?

That was sad, even for a leftist with an IQ in the mid-60's like you....


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

what has amazed about this entire thread is the number of people who have no idea why there against what we did and think they have the right to decide what happens to those people who had the courage and reasons within there hearts to volunteer to do what they felt was the right thing

Every time there reasons have been in correct
they have blamed GWB and not said a word about the UN stating the very same things
It has been proven 100 times that the Military did find out dated but still carrying the nasty WMDs 
over 500 of them. And some-how these munitions are not the same as one that was sitting on a scud ready to launch
the UN and the US congress did not state what shape the container that held the mustard gas was suppose to be in
THE SHIT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE GONE
nor the yellow cake

and what happened to the anthrax and the nerve gas and the other 6000 munitions that Saddam had according to everybody including the UN and Saddams own documents?

Buried like he buried his fighter jets?

No threat to us?

Look your opinions are fine with me, but try and find a reason that is real and stop taking what I say out of context because thats all you have left


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

konradv said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That is exactly what it does. I did not go because I am past 50
I tried to get a job with Halliburton
*Those who went feel the same way I do, It was the right thing to do*
your telling them it was the wrong thing to do, why do you think i am so passionate about this and the facts getting out there?
Bush?
are you kidding me?
could we have done a better job
Hell yes
Did the Intel get some things wrong? I dont know, the UN had as much shit we said he had, Allot of stuff even Saddam his self claimed he had has never been seen
THE MAN BURIED HIS FIGHTER JETS AND LIED ABOUT THAT
To start with the UN should have backed us up, told Saddam your done, go away (like we did, you forget that also)

Those kids believed in what they done and lord knows it was a HUGE success
In 8 years that country went from one that had 1 million people murdered to a republic in which women can even vote and hold office
are you kidding me?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Great I'll let you keep believing that drivel.


This is a question I always have for hyper-partisans, don't you find it to be such an odd coincidence that your "facts" always 100% of the time line up with the party you worship?  That's never the least bit weird to you guys?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK
> ...



You've got to wonder why Bush invaded if Saddam was never a threat.

That's part of what makes the invasino illegal you know.


----------



## Polk (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Iraq isn't stable, and even if it was, I don't know how a pro-Iran government in Baghdad is better for American interests.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



your funny and your on ignore
you lowered yourself down to where Jake is
Good luck in life bro, with your attitude along with the way you use your intelligence you will need it
I mean it, I will pray for you
This is nothing a man should have made a joke about


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Saddam may or may not have been a very evil person but without the WMD the WH claimed he was actively producing his regime, his military did not poise a significant threat to the US.  There are tens of thousands of US casualties and their families who must deal with the consequences of the invasion and occupation.  I don't think they are better off.  I'm not too sure the region is better off either.  It looks like Turkey seems to be ready to attack the Kurds and Iran seem to be shelling them regularly too.  Not to mention the civil conflict that killed an untold number of Iraqis.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Polk said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



I guess having Saddam there with 1 million dead Iraqis and god knows what weapons he really had was better?
I guess the 62% of people who voted in the last election including women make it an Iranian type govt?
THINK PEOPLE


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You admitted Saddam was never a threat.  That's all those of us anti-warmongers need to hear.

The fact that you can still justify war and so many dead americans despite Iraq never being a threat is quite chilling.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



ARE YOU GUYS E MAILING EACH OTHER?
look dude those people who went to war supported the very things your against, could you please respect those people enough to get off of there fucking backs? Its none  of you affair, Those kids believed, you did not, they mad the sacrifices, you chose not to

There has been about 100,000 killed according to most reputable sources sense the invasion
MORE than that *have been murdered in this country during the same time* and 900,000 less than the same sources stated about Saddam had killed in Iraq


----------



## Polk (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



We do, in fact, know what sort of weapons we had. The Bush administration's claims were false. Nuclear program was non-functioning. Chemical weapons were in such bad shape they weren't usable.

As for the last Iraqi election, look at the results. al-Maliki, an Iranian ally and involved in terrorist attacks against Americans go back to the 1980s, remains as prime minister.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



That was taken out of context and you know it
Dead Americans?
You know what is chilling?
you think this is a game and those kids who gave there lives and believed in this mission are a political pawn to you
you want to be on my ignore list?
go right ahead bud, go for it
I have no desire or debate anything who thinks people who gave it all by choice in something they believed as much as i do it was the right thing

May god forgive you for doing this to those kids memories


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Polk said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Did the UN claims differ from GWB claims?
were did it say those weapons from the terms were to remain no matter what the shape?
and the yellow cake? means nothing?
last election had women elected and women voted 
they do not allow that in Iran, just the oppoisite


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 "He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[4] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[5]"


That's your prime minister of Iraq, so thousands of americans died to put a friend to Hezbollah in office.  Thank goodness for the War in Iraq.....................................


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Iraq Election &#8221; Viewed From Basra, and Dubai
Why dont all of you who think what we did in Iraq is a joke take a look at this link and then tell me that Iran is running that country


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Sorry but those are your opinions not facts.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US gives up search for Iraq WMD

Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 
They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country. 

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago. 

Also don't forget the Iraq Survey Group's Final Report.

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such materialactivities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program

Iraq Survey Group Final Report


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK  
Registered User
Member #28394   



> 2002ongress approves the use of force If Saddam does not cooperate with the UN



There you go again, making my points for me.

According to the UN, Saddam was in compliance when Bush invaded.

Thanks again JRK!


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



bull shit
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 * The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.*
"*These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.*
*The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.*
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
*While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.*
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this 
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

T*he yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Nope not a political pawn, i hate both parties equally.  I think it's sad that your republican heros and the democrats fill our great young soldiers minds with lies in order to get them to go fight their wars.

They believed the lies they were told, most of us americans buy the lies our politicians feeds us, it's sad that the lies of our pathetic politicians on both sides of the aisle got them killed.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



bull shit
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 * The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.*
"*These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.*
*The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.*
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
*While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.*
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this 
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

T*he yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

Now you want to call the DOD liars thats fine with me
but it is the Department of defense that presented this info to congress
not me


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



Beg to differ.  They died because they were following the orders of the CiC.  Who knows the reason they joined.  I don't question why they joined, I question the the motives of the one who gave them the order.


----------



## Polk (Sep 14, 2011)

Yes, they did differ. The UN claim was the Iraq was not allowing weapons inspections. The Bush administration claimed Saddam had functioning chemical and biological weapons he was preparing to strike the United States with.

As for the Iran-Iraq connections, it deals with relations between the nations, not the organization of elections.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

I'm doubting many soldiers would've signed up if they'd been told the truth at onset of the war.

1.) There are no WMD's.
2.) We'll be installing a government based on Islam.
3.) Their prime minister will be a dear friend of Hezbollah.

Sad they weren't told the truth in the beginning.  

Now by all means, tell me how installing an Islam government with the leader being close with Hezbollah is a great wonderful thing.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



The why be a dick drock?
You know you got nothing better to do?
heros?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Naw, feel free to jump in at any time. 

Oh and if the mark is 1 million killed, how many Asians died when we secretly bombed Laos and Cambodia, not to mention the Christmas Carpet bombing of Hanoi?  Does that mean Johnson and Nixon should have been hung?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Not being a dick, you're just being sensitive and trying to find a way to justify thousands of americans put in the ground over a lie, you'd rather justify thousands of dead americans than go against your party.

That's what partisan politics has done to the minds of americans, for some reason people think it's some sort of blasphemy to say "I disagree with my party on a major issue."


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 * The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction,*


*

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir:

Even if the report is true, Saddam had no means by which to transport the same to the US.

Even if the report is true , Saddam was not suicidal, So he would have never attempted to use against the US.

So who is putting you up to this bullshit? Bibi?

.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Thats exactly what your doing
A kid who joined the marines after 3-2003 knew he was going to Iraq probably
they believed in it and you not is your business, speaking for them is none of your business


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 14, 2011)

*" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*

Because there is always some anti-American crybaby determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Did I say 1 word about any of that?
If any of it is true does that make it right?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



No one I know has questioned our soldiers courage.  Perhaps their lives were cut short before they found out.  Most of the casualties I've talked to fell they were lied to.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> 
> Because there is always some anti-American crybaby determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.



LOL!!!!!!!!!!

"If you don't want american soldiers to die in a war based on lies, having nothing to do with defense of the United States, you're anti-american!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> 
> Because there is always some anti-American crybaby determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.



I am so sick of hearing all of this whining
Was there mistakes?
every-one made a mistake

what kills me is Saddam caused all of this and none of these liberals will say one word about him, but will jump all up and down the president along with the kids who believed in that president and what he was doing
Hell the UBN stated the man by his own documents had 6500 munitions
gaggle of anthrax
He buried his fucking air-force in the fucking sand and these libs think this shit is a joke

Every-one should have to sit and watch those people who jumped to there deaths on 9-11 instead of burning to death every morning until they realize what it means to be the commander in chief
and what it means to defend this countrt


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> 
> Because there is always some anti-American crybaby determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.



Because it was a massive failure . In spite of what the warmongers, the jingoists, the gullible and neocrazies assert.

.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> ...



Saddam was scum, thousands of dead soldiers and dead Iraqi civilians and trillions of dollars later we've gone from Hussein scum to Hezbollah scum.


You're anti-american if you don't support wars to install Hezbollah agents, do you guys even listen to yourselves or ever think before you type?


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> ...



Drock why these kids are doing what there doing/did is none of your business
you claim that the 500 munitions found is a lie, not me
not those kids
you claim that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake is a lie
not those kids, not me
You claim Saddam being gone means nothing
you claim he was not a threat

Dont you get it?
Congress dis agreed with you
the president dis agreed with you
those kids dis agree with you

your not anti American, your in denial, you have no grasp of reality
when BHO won in 08, I did not go into denial
when the dems took over congress in 07
i accepted it


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



drock I have never claimed you were anti anything
your in denial Drock

The US congress
The President
The Kids who volunteered do not think the same
you keep going from Iranin to Hezbollah 
I cant keep up, or they the same?
I mean no dis respect

Women vote and can hold office in Iraq
your trying to compare Iran to that?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I know they all agreed, hence why I don't blame one party for the disaster in Iraq, both are at fault.  The soldiers were lied to, who knows how many would've signed up if they'd been told the 3 things I already listed.  However they were not.

The current Iraqi prime minister fled Iraq and ran to his Hezbollah pals while Saddam was in power.  What do I care if women can vote for Hezbollah scum?

Hussein scum to Hezbollah scum, not worth all the death, destruction and wasted tax dollars.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> what has amazed about this entire thread is the number of people who have no idea why there against what we did and think they have the right to decide what happens to those people who had the courage and reasons within there hearts to volunteer to do what they felt was the right thing
> 
> Every time there reasons have been in correct
> they have blamed GWB and not said a word about the UN stating the very same things
> ...



Wow I am amazed at your dazzling display of ESP and communication with the dead.  

Fact is the UN did not authorized any member state to remove Saddam's governement from power did they?

The US accused Iraq of actively producing and stockpiling massive amounts of Chemical and Biological weapons did they not?  They were also accused of having an active nuclear program correct?

The small amount of muntions that are missing from their once hugh stockpile of weapons doesn't represent a grave enough threat to spend the lives of our proud volunteers in the military, IMHO.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Why do you keep calling Iraq a disaster?
do me a favor. Run down to the local marine recruiting center and stick your head in there and tell them what a disaster this war is 
what 3 things dude?
now your calling those kids stupid? that some left wing nut job is there Saviour?
I am sorry, but your so far out of touch I do not were to start and its getting worse
Tax dollars
what about the bases we closed in Saudi and Kuwait?
How about the amount of dollars the UN is now getting as it pertains to Iraq
wasted?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I think you are unfairly accusing me of being on their 'fucking' backs.  Furhtermore it is most presumptuous of you to claim to know why they chose to join.  Many were called up from the reserve units who joined just to get an education.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



ROTF.  Your last link provided this tibit:

The AP article, published on July 5, said that a large amount of yellowcake uranium was, in fact, sold by Iraq to Canada, as part of a secret mission facilitated by the U.S. But this uranium was known to have been in Iraq following the conclusion of the first Gulf War. It was not "found" in 2003, as the IBD editorial claims. As the AP article said, "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, [a senior U.S. official] said."

July 5 marked the completion of the operation in which the United States removed 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Tuwaitha, the facility that once served as the center of Iraqs nuclear activities.The uranium was then shipped to Canada. Cameco Corp., a Canadian uranium producer, bought the material and plans to enrich it, before selling it to nuclear plants worldwide. According to Camecos Web site, yellowcake uranium, or uranium oxide, is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing before it can be used as a fuel.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Why do you keep calling Iraq a disaster?
> ?



dis·as·ter
&#8194; &#8194;[dih-zas-ter, -zah-ster] Show IPA
noun
1.
a calamitous event, especially one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship, as a flood, airplane crash, or business failure. 

Because the definition fits like a glove.

.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yes you told idb not to butt in....


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



So all of that time the UN was not in Iraq they did what with this yellow cake that no-one said one word about until 2008?
And your source is more accurate than my source?
and that in 2003 with a war going on just who was baby sitting this stuff then?
you think this shit is funny?


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



what are you talking about
you libs kill me
you think those kids that went to Iraq had no idea what you were saying every day?
"bush lied people died"
you calling them stupid now?
what a fucking ego


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Because it is/was a disaster.

What's it matter where I say it?  I'm not dissing soldiers in any way when I'm dogging the war, I'm dogging the suits in Washington who said we had to go and fed our brave soldiers lies to get them to fight.

I wish the UN never existed, remember breaking UN sanctions was one of your teams' excuses for the war.  As a conservative, I think listening to the UN on any political matters is a violation of the Constitution.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I think you are funny!  It was from the link you provided.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > what has amazed about this entire thread is the number of people who have no idea why there against what we did and think they have the right to decide what happens to those people who had the courage and reasons within there hearts to volunteer to do what they felt was the right thing
> ...



The amount of mis information that you libs re peat is treasonous in my opinion
The UN does not hold jurisdiction over the US congress, but lets say they did

they were wrong to start with (The UN)
There was WMDs
There was yellow cake stock-piled
2nd, they were getting kick backs with the oil for food program, and third, there was 54 other nations invaded/supported our invasion
You opinion of what is a threat and what the US congress and our president thought is not the same
stop thinking it is and that you matter other than 1 vote
and stop lying

The amount of WMD material found was never in question, it was if
answer me 1 question
If this yellow cake was just sitting around from the 80s or early 90s. Why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 14, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."
> ...



When I get to fifteen posts I'll send you a link to a nice photograph.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone continue to claim the Iraqi war was a failure?
> ...



The one million people thing. That number is generally quoted as the number killed when Saddam invaded Iran. And do you know who backed him in that war? Who was supporting him when he invaded Iran? So back then we weren't bothered about a million people dying. Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of war supporters to use the one million number now as a reason to invade him when we supported the guy before, during and after all those deaths?

And as for whether we found WMDs or not.

After we'd invaded and it became apparent there wasn't anything there Bush in desperation hand-picked the most gung ho weapons inspector there was, Charles Duelfer, a guy who'd staked his reputation on there being WMDs in Iraq, and sent him to Iraq to write the definitive report on exactly what WMDs there had been in Iraq. And he produced the following report. This is Bush's hand picked guy rmember, a guy who had a lot to lose if nothing was found. And here's what he found :

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." 

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty........

I can't post a link but you can find it easily with the google.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It was sold.  It wasn't gotten out of there as some kind of precausion.

You know what they say about opinions don'tcha?


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 14, 2011)

yellowcake is crappe. tyvm


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> answer me 1 question
> If this yellow cake was just sitting around from the 80s or early 90s. Why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?



The yellowcake was in Iraq in a monitored location and under IAEA seal. It wasn't removed because it didn't have to be, if one ounce of it had been removed the IAEA would have known. It had been monitored for twelve years and was still totally intact in 2003 when Saddam let inspectors back into Iraq. It only went missing when the US failed to secure the site it was at after we invaded.

And of course it's irrelevant anyway because, as I just pointed out, even the Bush administration finally admitted that Saddam didn't have any WMD programme.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 14, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...




And here we go:

Dream Trial | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I just wrote a post about the mountain of mis information the left has amassed
okay
the 1 million number
Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] *murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His* unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] *Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.*[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
[edit]Iraq sanctions

As far as WMDS go
you liberals just do not get it

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 * The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,"* Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Now let us visit what Hans Blix said about these weapons that do not exist on jan 27th 2003
FACTS - *UN Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents.
*
March 9, 2004 U.S. Army troops operating at a former Iraqi air base discovered numerous Russian made missiles. They are more than 6 feet long and each carried 1.6 kilograms or about 3.5 pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead. The uranium is not pure enough nor in large enough quantity to be a nuclear warhead. U.S. bomb experts noted the R-60 warheads are similar in design and content to a so-called "dirty bomb" that could contaminate a small area with radioactive materials.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Iraq

In statements and reports, Blix's inspection team reported that despite Iraq's denials, there were indications that Iraq had created weapons of mass destruction, including VX agent, a weapon that Blix described as "one of the most toxic [nerve agents] ever developed." Blix's report also contained evidence that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration regarding Iraq's weapons programs that Iraq supplied to the Security Council in December 2002. The United States and United Kingdom contended that Iraq's false declaration to the Security Council was clear and convincing evidence of Iraq's continued unwillingness to comply with United Nations resolutions and to peacefully disarm.

UN inspection reports provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs, thousand of tons of known chemical agents, empty chemical warheads (including an empty Sakr-18 chemical warhead) discovered subsequent to Iraq's declaration, and stocks of thiodiglycol (a precursor of mustard gas).

Iraq admitted to producingin violation of international law8,500 liters of anthrax bacteria capable of use in biological warfare. Iraq claimed that production stopped before the first Persian Gulf War and that it destroyed the anthrax. UN inspection reports stated, "Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction." In addition, UN inspectors concluded that there were strong indications that Iraq had manufactured far greater stores of anthrax.

Blix also reported that Iraq had manufactured a missile, the Samoud 2, that violated United Nations range restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 90 miles (150 kilometers). Inspectors also provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq rebuilt a missile plant that had previously been destroyed by earlier inspection teams and that it continued to illegally import chemicals used in formulating missile fuels and prohibited weapons. Blix ordered Iraq to begin destruction of the prohibited missiles by March 1, 2003, and to cease production of the missiles. Blix also insisted that Iraq begin to allow U-2 reconnaissance aircraft overflights demanded by inspectors.



Read more: Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) - Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) -


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> ...



I thought that the rule of law was part of what makes us America.

It would seem that those who espouse illegal actions are running counter to American ideals.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



That the US found the yellow cake in 2003?
you think thats funny?
No-one knows the truth, no more than can any-one explain how the UN had control of this stuff when there was years they were not there


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > answer me 1 question
> ...



He's been told this over and over again Raoul but he has a hard time understanding it.

His whole argument has been specifically debunked multiple times in multiple post by multiple people and he has yet to answer *any* point directly.

He just continues to re-use the now debunked points, how do you debate with such ignorance?


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > answer me 1 question
> ...



Do you have a link to that, and answer me this
why does the department of defense go to congress in 2006 and provide proof that there are over 500 munitions that meet the criteria as a WMD just so GWB can later say thats a lie?

this is called a link and a passage from the link'
ASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee
that would be the passage
The armed service committee would be congress
here comes the link
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Do you have a link to that, and answer me this
> why does the department of defense go to congress in 2006 and provide proof that there are over 500 munitions that meet the criteria as a WMD just so GWB can later say thats a lie?



I thought you would never ask.

*According to USAF Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski*
*
"I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president. "*

The new Pentagon papers - Salon.com


So read , learn go forth and sin no more.

.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > *" Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?"*
> ...



*We say plenty, especially the parts about how he was backed by America when he committed many of these atrocities. Where was your voice then, you were probably too busy saluting the flag?*


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Mr Nukes I have no idea what your talking about
but let us pretend i gave you a M16 and you go and kill 1 million people with it

Is it my fault to have given you the M-16 or is it yours for being a homicidal maniac?


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I am still  waiting for your link


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK continues to post debunked material, the actions of a progressive right-wing neo-con imperialist.


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Aaaahh...false moral outrage!!!
You lose.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

I looked up the infamous GWB admitting in 2004 there was no large stock piles of WMDs found at that time
Wonder why he did not mention the 550 metric tons of yellow cake at this time?
Wonder why he did not also mention that the DOD was going to present to congress there findings 2 years later?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> I looked up the infamous GWB admitting in 2004 there was no large stock piles of WMDs found at that time
> Wonder why he did not mention the 550 metric tons of yellow cake at this time?
> Wonder why he did not also mention that the DOD was going to present to congress there findings 2 years later?



Your fauxlogic is silly, your fauxrage is immoral.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK continues to post debunked material, the actions of a progressive right-wing neo-con imperialist.



Is there a cockroach in here?

Oh, it's just little fascist Jakestrarkey...

Anyone got bug spray?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2011)

Uncensored continues to sound silly.

Do you have anything new or useful other than your neo-con right wing progressive imperlialistic cheneyite talking points?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 14, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored continues to sound silly.



Jakestarkey continues to be

irrelevant.



> Do you have anything new or useful other than your neo-con right wing progressive imperlialistic cheneyite talking points?
> 
> Didn't think so.



Man, I sure hope you really are a Republican, posting to mock fucknut leftists with single digit IQ's.


I mean because otherwise, you would just be pathetic....


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



No...according to JRK's theory, it was all justified because a lot of brave Americans died there and we would be dishonouring their memories to suggest otherwise.
I fail to see the correlation myself.


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



My theory is its none of your business why those young men and women chose to go over there and risk it all
I can tell you this, they have a different view of those events than either of you do
I wrote a thread that pin points the amount of mis information you guys live on. I am serious
This thread has nothing to do with anything but one, and that one is not Hanoi, Laos or Cambodia
More mis information. Its all you have


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



false moral outrage?

You have went to far over the line bud with this. you lack of respect for those kids will come back and haunt you one day


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Iran is thrilled. We removed their mortal enemy and the only country that served as a buffer.

I think its just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I don't think I suggested any reason why they went over there.
I have no beef with them or their personal motivation.
I agree that they are very brave.

My point isn't about them, it's about your frothy-mouthed false outrage showing that you have nothing left to argue with.


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Good grief!
Please quote where I or anyone here has shown "lack of respect for these kids".


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Saddam Hussein killed close to 1 million of his own people. If I gave you a M-16 and you went and killed 1 million people with it, is that my fault?
Is it me that would need to be punished for what you did?
Buffer? after 9-11 there will be no more need for buffers. You screw up and you will get the Saddam treatment every time every day


----------



## JRK (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Bud If I have to tell you how far you have went over the line with all of this, it should suffice to say that should do it
you can question me 7-24s 365
we can debate what a WMD is and what A stock pile of WMDs are
i dont care
you can cal GWB every name in the book
I dont care

Those kids volunteered and put everything they have on the line because they feel the very same way I do
every-time you say one of them gave there life because they were lied too, I want you to find one that is doing this because he believes in it and look him in the face and start explaining to him what a fool he or she is
that they have been lied to and that there sacrifice is for nothing
go ahead


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Like I said...lost...


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 14, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It's funny to watch from my seat idb.


----------



## idb (Sep 14, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'm worried about being put on 'ignore' now.


----------



## kaz (Sep 14, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You said I say Obama's a Marxist.  I do say that, but only because he is.  Once again you prove he's not by foaming at the mouth rather then answering the simple question.  Which plank of the Communist manifesto Obama's not in agreement with.  Wow, what a whack job, I think someone who's ideology is consistent with the communist manifesto is a Marxist.  You counter that by spinning in circles and drooling.  Well played...not....

Maybe you can answer a simpler question since you're completely whiffing on the first one.  You said I'm a "partisan."  Since you tell me I'm not a Republican, you are.  But obviously the Democrats don't call Obama a "Marxist."  So what "Party" am I acting "Partisan" on behalf of exactly?


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Lets see?
> 
> 1. We diverted focus away from the war on terrorism
> 2. We invaded a country that was not involved in terrorism and was not a threat
> ...



According to the United Nations, many Democrat Senators and Congressmen, (who voted to go to war) the free world's intelligence community and even Al Gore and Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein was a very real threat.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see?
> ...



No one voted to go to war, your premise is flawed.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 14, 2011)

idb said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...





It's like 'timeout' only better.

You don't have to deal with his ignorance directly.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 14, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see?
> ...



He had not been a threat since he got his ass kicked ten years earlier

Not worth 4000 American deaths


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 14, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> According to the United Nations, many Democrat Senators and Congressmen, (who voted to go to war) the free world's intelligence community and even Al Gore and Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein was a very real threat.



Saddam was indeed a threat. 

AIPAC , PNAC and the neocrazies wanted Saddam dead because it was in ***THEIR*** best interest.

.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 14, 2011)

Don't forget the 150k maimed, and 100k Iraqis is way conservative. 2-3 trillion dollars for nuthin'. Stupidest war evahhhh. Ruined the Aghan war too.And thanks for the depression, and paralyzing the country since 1/2010...


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




OK, I'll answer both your posts here. Firstly the number of people Saddam killed. However you break the number down, the vast majority of the people he killed including the genocide against the kurds at Halabja were from when he seized power until the beginning of the Gulf War, a period during which we supported him the whole time. So don't you think it's hypocritical of war supporters to use those deaths as a reason to invade Iraq when America supported and armed Saddam during the preiod when most of those deaths occurred.

Secondly the WMD thing. A press release by the DOD from during the Iraq war period is meaningless. What they actually found were a bunch of old artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war. These shells were battlefield munitions, limited to a specific area and weren't very effective when they asctually were used twenty years before they were found. Saddam's chemical weapons had a shelf life of a few days at best so they were completely useless decades after they were made. Useless battlefield munitions can only be described as WMD if you've come up with nothing and are desperate to back up your original claims, which is something you and the DOD have in common here.

Here are some links for you :


The U.S. Defense Departments Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) is a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation. Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002.

So what is the MCTLs opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, The Iraqis . . . produce[d] a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable, says the report. When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a make and use regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.

Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking. The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best -- hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.

There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or toxicity. But according to the MCTL, The Iraqis had a small number of bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use -- an action few soldiers were willing to perform.

Lies About Iraq&#146;s Weapons Are Past Expiration Date | | AlterNet

The IAEA team is visiting the Tuwaitha site, which is 50 kilometres (30 miles) south of Baghdad, under close American guard.

The visit was agreed after weeks of pleading by the IAEA, which has kept the radiological materials at the site safely under UN seal for 12 years. 

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Missing Iraq uranium 'secured'


At a warehouse about 400 yards outside Tuwaitha, the Marines secured what they called the "Yellow Cake" facility. Named "Location C" by international inspectors, the building had been placed under seal by investigators in 1991 to keep fissionable material from being reused in Iraq's atomic weapons program.

The Marines, who insist they never broke the IAEA's seals, discovered high levels of radioactivity behind an open steel door, where blue barrels of uranium water filled the storeroom. 

Fate of Al-Tuwaitha nuclear material unclear - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review



And here's the Bush administration saying the same thing :

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the IAEA is different. The IAEA is going in, that's the International Atomic Energy --

Q:  Right.

MR. FLEISCHER:  They're going in to look at the nuclear facility.

Q:  Right.  Just to make certain that the facility is intact?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. The search for WMD involves biological and chemical, which was not headed by IAEA.

Q: Well, why not have the other agency go in and be able to work without any --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because IAEA is going in to take a look at actual inventoried items that they, themselves, knew precisely where they were, what their status was, because they inventoried them. That wasn't the case with the chemical and biological. What the United Nations concluded about the chemical and biological is he had tons of  it -- anthrax, VX, sarin -- but it was not accounted for. They had accounted for these nuclear materials. And that's why the difference.

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/was...p;amp;amp;t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 15, 2011)

_"OK, I'll answer both your posts here. Firstly the number of people Saddam killed. However you break the number down, the vast majority of the people he killed including the genocide against the kurds at Halabja were from when he seized power until the beginning of the Gulf War..."_

Vast majority??  Can you back that statement up with fact?He had more than a few people killed during his invasion of Kwait, the Gulf War, the following uprising against him, another decade of oppression and the Invasion of Iraq (GWII).

_"...So don't you think it's hypocritical of war supporters to use those deaths as a reason to invade Iraq when America supported and armed Saddam during the preiod when most of those deaths occurred."_

Not at all. As far as global politics/history is concerned that was ancient history.


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

9thIDdoc said:


> _"OK, I'll answer both your posts here. Firstly the number of people Saddam killed. However you break the number down, the vast majority of the people he killed including the genocide against the kurds at Halabja were from when he seized power until the beginning of the Gulf War..."_
> 
> Vast majority??  Can you back that statement up with fact?He had more than a few people killed during his invasion of Kwait, the Gulf War, the following uprising against him, another decade of oppression and the Invasion of Iraq (GWII).
> 
> ...






> Not at all. As far as global politics/history is concerned that was ancient history.


So you agree that supporters of the war shouldn't bring up the number of deaths under Saddam as a justification for the invasion?
After all, it's ancient history.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2011)

The numbers of American deaths are not, _ipso facto_, reasons to support the Iraq War.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 15, 2011)

The preventative war that WE brought to Iraq killed more innocent Iraqis than 10 Saddam Husseins.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> Don't forget the 150k maimed, and 100k Iraqis is way conservative. 2-3 trillion dollars for nuthin'. Stupidest war evahhhh. Ruined the Aghan war too.And thanks for the depression, and paralyzing the country since 1/2010...



Well I know I'm just nitpicking but the Vietnam War was more stupid than the Iraq War, most of our foreign policy and how we use our military is stupid just to different degrees.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



its the liberal in you that makes you that way
To satrt with boh wars are a tragedy. without Saddam and OBL, thers is no wars
the root cause
not 9-11
not the WMDs 
not the yellow cake
the people

2nd
you think we should not have went, you use the lose of life of american troops as one of your reasons
You speak for people who knew when they joined that there was avery good chance (marines etc...) that they were going to see battle
they did that for a reason, they joined ecause they see these events in the same light (in general) as I do

After 9-11 this world changed and those kids who decided to and fight the battle seen the very things we had no choice but to do the same Bush did and millions of us did and still do, yet you think its your place in life to speak for those kids

ITS NOT

let me ask another question. you realize there has been more people murdered in this country sense 9-11 than has died in Iraq?

yet your focus is not that proble, your more worried about attacking Bush and using those kids bravery and commitment to the cause as your reason

I hate violence, I hate where we are in both of those wars. But what else do we do after 9-11?
those kids knew what had to be done and they did it

You talk about Iraq as this huge failure and in only 7 years they has a 62% turnout in there last election that has women not only voting, but elected
saddam is gone
his desire to mass Weapons that have but one purpose is gone
His proven record of being  mass murderer is gone


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > _"OK, I'll answer both your posts here. Firstly the number of people Saddam killed. However you break the number down, the vast majority of the people he killed including the genocide against the kurds at Halabja were from when he seized power until the beginning of the Gulf War..."_
> ...




So we should not use the history of what that person was as we decide on what he may do?
that logic and ted bundy makes no sense what so ever. One of the very reaons we could not trust Saddam with anymore than BB gun is thos 1 million people he murdered as well as invading Kuwait for what he claimed was drilling for oil in Iraq, side ways


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Again I ask, how is having a Hezbollah agent elected a great success?


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You know BHO was elected the president by a huge margin. Many see him as a radical. My self I just see him as someone who is in over is head
Being blessed with living in a country that allows the people decide who represents us as well as leads us does not mean it goes the way the individual wants it too

The measure of success is not the person, its the way that person became that leader. I cannot use a better example

You see Iraqis president as a terrorist
I see him as a product of the victory and what the people of Iraq wanted as there leader

By the way have you been keeping up with the way the Iraqi govt. is helping get those 2 kids out of Iran today?
google it
It is amazing how far thats came in 8 years


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



And hes still horribly lost


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Good spin on how a friend of Iran and a friend of Hezbollah running Iraq is a good thing.

At least you didn't dodge the question, I give you credit for that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2011)

If anyone thinks Iran is anything but our enemy, and that Iraq will  not ally with Iran, simply refuses to recognize reality.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Doc how do you get to where u are?
really


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



How do I get to where I am?  A person who thinks a man with terrorist connections running a country is a bad thing?  I thought that was common sense.


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 15, 2011)

Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.

I call that a failure of monumental proportions.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...





Here's the truth again!

Let's see JRK dance around this link one more time!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2011)

It is common sense.  To deny reveals a lack of sense.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Speaking of lies or misrepresentation.  If Depleted Uranium shells are WMD then we got some serious "splainin" to do.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Again, your link said it was not found in 2003 but had been there since the Israeli mission to destroy his Nuclear Plant.  Again what I find funny is that this information comes from your link, understand?  In fact it is funny as hell that you still deny it.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I have read the snopes link
there are so many holes in there info
to start with no one watched over the yellow cake during the time the UN was kicked out
lets not forget even the AP dis agrees with this as well as this

I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here.  Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all.  A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons.  This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe".  First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him.  Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby.  Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report).  Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it?  In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program?  Does it matter?  After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD.  In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future.  How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD?  (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time.  From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active".  The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that.  But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003.  Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard".  Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003.  It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent.  Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence.  And why would an effort need to be "concerted?"  (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.)  Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program."  In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted.  ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition.  As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true.  Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq.  (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.")  Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003.  Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003.  But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003.  I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense.  And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

the truth is the US army found this stock pile after the invasion and took control of it
the facts are clear
the dates and whi had control of it depends on which side of the febce you sit

Saddam had contol of this stuff until 03, if not it would have gone long before 08
Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Depends, if the million people were bashed over the head with the M-16 you provided then no not so much, however if you also supplied the bullets that killed them then yes you would be culpable. Just like America is culpable for suppling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Its terribly inconvenient when the truth doesnt match your preconceptions, eh JRK?


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.
> 
> I call that a failure of monumental proportions.



to start with those kids who gave it all over there did it because they felt is was the right thing to do. It amazes me anyone woud use that as a reaon you call this a failure
To them, it was a sacrifice they made to meake it a succes as it is

waste?
the failed job stimulus cost the same while over 130,000 people were murdered in this country during the same time
thats a waste

The number of bases we have closed in Iraq and Kuwait semse 03 numbers, well look for your self
No longer existent:

Camp Doha (closed in 2006, forces and equipment distributed among Camps Arifjan and Buehring) 
Camp Navistar(closed 2007) 
Camp New Jersey (closed in 2004) Combined to become part of Camp Virginia 
Camp New York (closed in 2004, reactivated and deactiviated several time since.) 
Camp Pennsylvania (closed in 2004) 
Camp Victory (closed in 2006) 
Camp Wolverine (closed in 2004) 
Camp Maine (closed in 2003) 
you can goggle the big one in saudi 
that was closed in 03
List of United States Army installations in Kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2011)

The soldiers' lives are not justification for the war or its results.

Whether the failed job stimulus (at least 1.4 million jobs created) has nothing to do with the loss of $$$ in Iraq: there is no equivalency.

Number of base closings in Iraq and Kuwait are no justification for the war.

JRK!  There was and is and never will be justified.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...




lies?

the only people who are representing this in a way that is false is those who are on the wrong side of this event and will no admit it

Saddam was suppose to be clean
period
he was not even close
period
the amount of bad stuff that has never been found the UN claimed he had is never mentioned, Just what GWB said

which in all reality in time has been found
see you think that this stuff was suppose to be on a brand new scud missle pointed at a US military base

the agreement stated get rid of it, all of it


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



you keep talking about events that post Kuwait, UN sanctions and the war have nothing to do with
why?
and you keep making accusations of this country that I am not sure that are true the way you protray them

this thread is about the succes the war in Iraq wass
it was questioned as far ass it being legal, that was decided in this country before we invaded
why all of tis energy to try and spin this thread into far more than it is?


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

why do you who have been against this war and its success feel so threatened?
Being against people killing other people is why we went to start with

Saddam was a mad man and he is gone
Iraq was a powder keg and as we found out had some bad stuff no-one had control of for one reason
to hurt people

Iraq is a budding republic and damn if that is being tried to be shown as a failure
People face it
we won
the world is a better place
were leaving
and those sacrificed those kids made were for the right reasons

what more else is there to say?
deal with it, pray about it and ask yourself why are you still so against an event that is over, we won


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.
> ...



*They did not necessarily feel this way, just as many soldiers did not feel that way in the Vietnam War. When you are in the service and get sent to fight a stupid war by an asshole like Bush, you are stuck, you do not particularly like it.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



wat does nam have to do with Iraq?
2 totally different events


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
I know the truth here...


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I answered your question about the M-16 and killing people.  Do you not understand the answer, or do you question wether or not the Raygun administration sold weapons and support to Iraq during the 80's or that the same administration made missile deals with Iran during the same war?


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
> I know the truth here...



guilty?
stupid?
you hav e no understanding of what any of this has been abput
if you think this is funny, you are a new addition to the ignore list because you childish behavior is not funny about a very serious as well a very successfulundertaking that over 4000 Americans gave there lives for


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



what answer? that alleged events that allegedly involved RR was the reason Saddam killed 1 million people?
It is unclear to me how you could claim GWB or RR was evil and was resp. for killing any-one and you ignore the real murderer all this time
How did you get there?


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
> ...



You mistake my ironic humor at how the war turned out, and how repubs and neocons are running away form the war they loved at one time as laughing at the devastations of the results of the war? Really? you should know better than that. I am not so shallow a human. and I well aware of the spineless democrats culpability in this war going on, too...But this war is George Bush's war he LED us into! he WAS THE PRESIDENT! He was gung ho about the war. It wouldnt of happened if a democrat was the president and you know it! 

Starting an uneccessary war is one of the worst things a LEADER can do.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

Please get the US out of the middle east...completely......it's insane over there and we do not belong there, nor are we the worlds policemen.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.



Kevin GWB made sure we were going to get out of Iraq in 2008
we did what we said we would do and the 3% of the oil Iraq is providing for the world is flowing


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.
> ...



huh? When did we get out of iraq? we're still there???


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



Kevin the 4000 kids who gave there lives would not have been there is they felt it was a waste
look you dis agreeing with the war in Iraq is your right
but what amazes me is the millions who thought different, signed up and went and got the job done
we are different 

what amazes me is no-one who is against that war blames Saddam. He had years to prevent it and 18 months after 9-11
GWB never hid what was coming, he could have stopped it


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



cuckoo?
I did not say we were out yet
we have 4 months left

U.S.

there is talk about keeping 10,000 there
but thats at best a maybe

please do our DD before calling people cuckoo and do not take people out of context


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



your idea was cuckoo, not you! dont be so sensitive!

we shouldnt be there in the first place! no presence at all, especially not a military one. that's my opinion.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
> I know the truth here...



You know DA TROOF because you eat magic mushrooms!

{The president said Iraqs refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,}

Goddamned Bush, lying to the people like....


OH WAIT...

{Clinton said.}

Clinton Iraq has abused its last chance - CNN

ROFL

You fascists are such stupid fucks..


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




Well then, maybe you and 9thIDdoc need to have a private chat to agree on your positions.
My answer was to him.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 15, 2011)

Saddam's teeth to retaining a perception of power was bolstering he had WMD.

Got what he deserved.

World is mo better


----------



## Dionysis (Sep 15, 2011)

WOW, there are still people who believe the big lie!

Amazing!


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
> ...



What does something Clinton said in 1998 have to do with Bush's invasion?


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

OODA_Loop said:


> Saddam's teeth to retaining a perception of power was bolstering he had WMD.
> 
> Got what he deserved.
> 
> World is mo better



Saddam was lying about having them and not having them
he was lying about everything and he could have stopped the entire thing
all I have done in this thread is show Saddam had WMD material and muntions he was suppose to have destroyed
that made the war legal and showed that the UN  was wrong

what amazes me is if GWB lied, so did the dems and so did the UN
it was never a question of if, the question was what was and what was not
Saddam had years to do the ight hing


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Firstly, dismissing my point of view because of your perception of my politics is instant loss.

Secondly, I have never presumed to speak for anyone, let alone those who went to fight in Iraq, neither has anyone else here - you are the only one doing that.

I do say, though, that if their reason for going was because they believed it was just and legal and essential for the defence of the USA then they were deceived by the people at the top.
That is a tragedy.
I don't question their bravery or their strong sense of duty or whatever, I'm in awe of their commitment to their country - but it's a catastrophe that those qualities were wasted, and subsequently lost to your country on a false cause.

Further, 62% turnout in a country that was supposed to be gagging for democracy and spreading flower petals before the feet of their liberators seems a bit low to me.
As I said earlier they had a 100% turnout a few years before.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

Dionysis said:


> WOW, there are still people who believe the big lie!
> 
> Amazing!



I know 
there was over 500 muntions found that the DOD stated to congress that they met the definition of WMD and damn if there wasnt a shit load of yellow cake sitting over there all that time
just goes to show you that id you would just look into these matters you never know what you will find
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.
> ...



If you hadn't have invaded, the bases wouldn't have been there at all.
Your point is...well...pointless.


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
> ...



then, in my opinion, Clinton was wrong on that issue. how does this even come close to letting Bush off the hook for LEADING us into an uneccessary war in Iraq? I hate excuses and excuse makers.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



This is what is wrong with todays politics
no one does there own DD
those bases were there after 1991 to keep Saddam out


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Kevinthedog said:
> ...



exactly. These folks continue to scramble to explain the horribleness of us being stuck in an uneccessary war! and how we got there! they try to blame everyone except the ONES who LED us there. you dont think we remember Bush's state of the union address? the freedom fries crap? the dixie chick stuff? (hey! those dixie chicks ended up BEING TOTALLY CORRECT!)


----------



## Kevinthedog (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



pretty much.


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Fair enough, my mistake.


----------



## JRK (Sep 15, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



your politics is your business
took it for granted that your lack of knowledge of the events with Iraq you fit the mold
the deception part takes care of the lack of knowlwdge
you want to go find a marine that thinks he ids doing the right thing when he went to Iraq and explain that to him, you know being a waste

Your mold is about complete


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> What does something Clinton said in 1998 have to do with Bush's invasion?



Gee stupid, what could it possibly have to do with it?


----------



## idb (Sep 15, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You did again with the politics!

Anyway


> From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war...............I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Why Iraq Was a Mistake - TIME



There are plenty more...you are the one presuming to talk for the soldiers, no one else here.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 15, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > What does something Clinton said in 1998 have to do with Bush's invasion?
> ...



I asked you first, fucking moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2011)

The right wing progressive neo-con imperlialists have shamed the US.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*The soldiers were fighting in an immoral, unjustified war both in Vietnam and Iraq. Have you not read the comparisons? *


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



you keep repeating the in accurate history of these events the days of becoming true are gone. People have wised up and stopped taking your word for it


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



To start with it is rare for a person to admit they did not have an accurate understanding of an event
That I respect you for
I also have no doubt there are some who where in the military who did not agree with invading Iraq.

y point has been and continues to be that at some point in time by joining you knew Iraq was not only on the radar, it was over 50% of the radar
What is difficult for some to vision is people like me. I did my own DD
I put my self in GWB shoes
I looked at the info we had available in the public
I think he made the right choice

I could agree with you if Blix had not been saying the same things we were saying 6-8 weeks before we invade
That info was based on Iraqi intel from Iraqi documents provided by the Iraqi govt.

Those kids believe like I do. I am not speaking for them, I am speaking with thim


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 16, 2011)

What the fuck is with these left-over hippies and their clumsy attempts at revisionism?


----------



## idb (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Can't you follow?
Blix was working for the UN.
Despite what he said, it was not his job to call for an invasion (which he never did in any case).
He could only report back to the UN and then that body would make the call for action.
They didn't, yet the US used the UN as a justification for their action.

You've been adamant up 'til now that everyone that has served over there believed in the justness of the cause, but now you retreat from that after one easily-found article.

Every other argument you've put up has been refuted by others.

I'm sure you'll retreat back to a default setting of outrage now but...so be it.

Your naive trust in your politicians is almost endearing.


----------



## idb (Sep 16, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> What the fuck is with these left-over hippies and their clumsy attempts at revisionism?



I agree...fucking idiots!!!


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Never have I claimed Blix was the person to make the call
It was verification 
not retreat, never
my point stays the course
If you joined after 9-11 you had to believe or why else would you join?
Your article was about people that were there all ready

I am disappointed in that accusation
Your resembling other left wing liberals I have grown tired of there spin


----------



## idb (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...





> Never have I claimed Blix was the person to make the call


Yet you're using his opinion as justification.



> If you joined after 9-11 you had to believe or why else would you join?
> Your article was about people that were there all ready


Now you're changing your position to counter my argument



> I am disappointed in that accusation


Which one...that you're endearing?



> Your resembling other left wing liberals I have grown tired of there spin


I'm not sure what you mean, I have no objection to justified military action, I just don't accept that this one was justified - oddly enough, neither do many of the major players; Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell being three fairly major examples.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Kevinthedog said:


> exactly. These folks continue to scramble to explain the horribleness of us being stuck in an uneccessary war!



You fascists attempt to portray this as "Bush lied" to get us into war. But the fact is that both sides have used IDENTICAL statements back to 1988, regarding Iraq and Saddam. The partisan hacks of the fascist democrats are the worst at this. The list of calls for military action against Iraq BY FASCIST LEADERS, is pages long, Hillary, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al. This portrayal of Bush and Republicans as "war mongers" while the fascists were the voice of reason is pure dishonesty. Bush may well have done nothing more than read Clinton's speeches.




> and how we got there! they try to blame everyone except the ONES who LED us there.



The ones who led us there include the leaders of the fascist democratic party. YOU try to pretend that the fascists opposed this and the Republicans FORCED us to go to war. That is pure bullshit. Iraq sits as firmly in the lap of Clinton as it does Bush. Some of the loudest voices for war came from the fascist party. The pretense that this was all the Republicans is purely dishonest. 



> you dont think we remember Bush's state of the union address? the freedom fries crap? the dixie chick stuff? (hey! those dixie chicks ended up BEING TOTALLY CORRECT!)



Oh, you fascists remember everything Bush said, you just conveniently forget everything Clinton and the leaders of YOUR party said, then dishonestly pretend that the fascists were the voice of reason. You weren't.


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




In statements and reports, Blix's inspection team reported that despite Iraq's denials, there were indications that Iraq had created weapons of mass destruction, including VX agent, a weapon that Blix described as "one of the most toxic [nerve agents] ever developed." Blix's report also contained evidence that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration regarding Iraq's weapons programs that Iraq supplied to the Security Council in December 2002. The United States and United Kingdom contended that Iraq's false declaration to the Security Council was clear and convincing evidence of Iraq's continued unwillingness to comply with United Nations resolutions and to peacefully disarm.

*UN inspection reports provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs, thousand of tons of known chemical agents, empty chemical warheads (including an empty Sakr-18 chemical warhead) discovered subsequent to Iraq's declaration, and stocks of thiodiglycol (a precursor of mustard gas).

Iraq admitted to producingin violation of international law8,500 liters of anthrax bacteria capable of use in biological warfare. Iraq claimed that production stopped before the first Persian Gulf War and that it destroyed the anthrax. UN inspection reports stated, "Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction." In addition, UN inspectors concluded that there were strong indications that Iraq had manufactured far greater stores of anthrax.

Blix also reported that Iraq had manufactured a missile, the Samoud 2, that violated United Nations range restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 90 miles (150 kilometers). Inspectors also provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq rebuilt a missile plant that had previously been destroyed by earlier inspection teams and that it continued to illegally import chemicals used in formulating missile fuels and prohibited weapons. Blix ordered Iraq to begin destruction of the prohibited missiles by March 1, 2003, and to cease production of the missiles. Blix also insisted that Iraq begin to allow U-2 reconnaissance aircraft overflights demanded by inspectors.

*

*This is not an opinion*
This is what one calls information

Read more: Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) - Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) -


As far as being as being justified? are you saying GWB and Rumsfeld said the Iraq war was not justified?If you say so

I have not changed any position. Your the same as Dr Drock and every other liberal I have debated with on this issue, in fact I doubt your a different person, you remind me of a paid spammer I have seen on other message boards

it is the same spin over and over and it never is about the subject matter
Its allways about bringing harm to the person, never about debating the subject matter

As far as the kids who volunteered to fight the battle with GWB as president, I have no idea why anyone would think this country was doing the right thing and that the president was worth supporting by putting there life on the line for that purpose and that person
You seriously are willing to deny that?
You seriously are willing to play with that? to spin it?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK say this out loud.

"I support a war that's end result is a government based on Islam with a Hezbollah agent as prime minister."

It's really that simple, even if you can downplay all the deaths and $.  As Uncensored says it's both parties fault equally, democrats think they were playing nice with Iraq.  Clinton's sanctions on Iraq probably killed more civilians than the War did and the majority of democratic senators wanted this stupid war too.


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK say this out loud.
> 
> "I support a war that's end result is a government based on Islam with a Hezbollah agent as prime minister."
> 
> It's really that simple, even if you can downplay all the deaths and $.  As Uncensored says it's both parties fault equally, democrats think they were playing nice with Iraq.  Clinton's sanctions on Iraq probably killed more civilians than the War did and the majority of democratic senators wanted this stupid war too.



Dr Drock say this out loud
JRK supports  the war because it was the right thing to do
JRK supports the war because he leader we removed was an evil person who had weapons he was not suppose to have, he had lied about what weapons he did have, and had murdered 100s of thousands of people
JRK supports the republic which has been formed from this war
JRK supports the will of the people of Iraq
and
JRK supports the time table that Iraq and the US agreed upon in 2008 that mandates our final days there as we speak, to the point come 2012 there maybe as few as no Americans left there
JRK supports this victory and the will of the people in Iraq is no different than the will of the people in this country. Who they elect as well as who we elect is not going to make every one happy


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > exactly. These folks continue to scramble to explain the horribleness of us being stuck in an uneccessary war!
> ...



Only a fascist would apologize for a war of aggression, making you the fascist.


A lot happened in those 5 years including Saddam's cooperation with IAEA inspectors.  Your attempt to rewrite history has failed, as have your other inane revisionist posts.


Youre not very good at this, maybe a BB isn't the best place for you to spend your time?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK say this out loud.
> ...



1.) Going from a Hussein nut to a Hezbollah nut isn't the right thing to do.
2.) Going from one evil person to another isn't the right thing to do.
3.) Who cares what the UN said he could and couldn't have, doing the UN's bidding is unconstitutional.
4.) A republic that elects Hezbollah agents, still dunno how you support that.
5.) If you support the will of the people of Iraq then let them revolt on their own.
6.) Screw the timetable, should've never gone.
7.) Electing Hezbollah shouldn't make any US taxpayer happy, since the US taxpayer had to pay for this disaster.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Only a fascist would apologize for a war of aggression, making you the fascist.



I'm not a democrat, moron.

Nor did I support, promote or apologize for the war. What I did was pin your skanky ass to the wall for the hypocrisy of you and your shameful party. The fascist democrats pushed and promoted this war every bit as much as the Republicans did. YOU own it just as much as Bush does. 

{"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 }

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction



> A lot happened in those 5 years including Saddam's cooperation with IAEA inspectors.  Your attempt to rewrite history has failed, as have your other inane revisionist posts.
> 
> 
> Youre not very good at this, maybe a BB isn't the best place for you to spend your time?



You fascists attempt to portray this as a Bush thing - but as usual, you're lying.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

> Uncensored2008
> Registered User
> Member #27995





> You fascists attempt to portray this as a Bush thing - but as usual, you're lying.



Which Democrat ordered our troops to invade?

It's a Bush thing alright, you lose again fascist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Which Democrat ordered our troops to invade?



Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, drooling Dick Durban, and 131 more.



> It's a Bush thing alright, you lose again fascist.



I'm not a democrat, dumbfuck.

I don't support the Obama plan to merge corporations and the federal government. I oppose the fascists democrats and Obama's fascist care.


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> JRK supports  the war because ........



JRK supports the war because he is related to GWB
JRK supports the war because he is a zionist and Israel was the intended beneficiary.
JRK supports the war because he is a parasite hence his money was not used.
JRK supports the war because he didn't have to personally fight - he could comfortably watch it from his home in TelAviv;

And so it goes.

.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Which Democrat ordered our troops to invade?
> ...



You're so stupid you don't even know who is the CIC.


Why do you even try?


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Only a fascist would apologize for a war of aggression, making you the fascist.
> ...



I am starting to realize that these people who have been dead set against this war are panicked because its over and the quagmire bush lied people died bull shit is over
It was a huge success, One that I pray we never have to do again and it still sad that so many had to give so much, but it had run its course


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



It's a _*shame*_ that so many gave so much.

It's *sad* that they didn't have to.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Ask Uncensored if he favored the War in Iraq.  I'm doubting you'll like what you hear.

He's just calling out democrats for their hypocrisy.  The War in Libya and the War in Iraq are very similar in terms of being examples of warmongering having absolutely nothing to do with the defense of the US.  The supporters of these wars use the same excuse of removing a meanyhead from the government of those countries.

Yet for some reason people to pick and choose one of the 2 to agree with, I would think people would either disagree with both or agree with both.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Nothing you have done in these pages does anything more than prove it was not "a huge success" but a real disaster instead.  Period.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> You're so stupid you don't even know who is the CIC.



Did you wet yourself as your wrote that?

You did, didn't you?



> Why do you even try?



Are you a Truth Matters sock? You have exactly the same intellect.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> I am starting to realize that these people who have been dead set against this war are panicked because its over and the quagmire bush lied people died bull shit is over
> It was a huge success, One that I pray we never have to do again and it still sad that so many had to give so much, but it had run its course



For the record, I very vocally opposed the Iraq war and still think it was a mistake.

What I won't do is engage in the dishonesty of the left and pretend this is something Bush cooked up. The Iraq engagement, from 1988 onward, was a fully bipartisan effort.

Honestly, the Kuwaitis WERE slant drilling the Iraqi fields and I never saw them as superior to Saddam and his thugs in the first place. 

BUT, I will not sit and listen to the partisan bullshit about the poor, innocent fascists who were led down the primrose path. They were 100% culpable for this whole affair. Right along with Bush and the Republicans.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

Unkotare said:


> What the fuck is with these left-over hippies and their clumsy attempts at revisionism?



That's really harsh.  I don't think JRK is a left-over Hippie........


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > You're so stupid you don't even know who is the CIC.
> ...



Snappy retort, I suppose that's the best you've got.  Figures given the intellectual level of your other posts.

So did you want to try again?

Guess who is the CIC?...(Hint: you can google it if youre having a hard time with your third grade social studies class).


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Kevinthedog said:
> 
> 
> > exactly. These folks continue to scramble to explain the horribleness of us being stuck in an uneccessary war!
> ...



I can only speak for myself but I certainly remember Mrs. Albrights declaration that the sanctions were worth it even if they resulted in the killing half a million Iraqi children.  

Both parties are responsible.  I'll say it again, both sides are responsible.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Snappy retort, I suppose that's the best you've got.  Figures given the intellectual level of your other posts.
> 
> So did you want to try again?
> 
> Guess who is the CIC?...(Hint: you can google it if youre having a hard time with your third grade social studies class).



So, do you consider yourself a trained, attack pit-yorkie, fighting for lies, injustice and the Obamunist way?


Durh, whooo da CIC, betyer dunt no, duhrrrr

ROFL

Fucking moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> I can only speak for myself but I certainly remember Mrs. Albrights declaration that the sanctions were worth it even if they resulted in the killing half a million Iraqi children.
> 
> Both parties are responsible.  I'll say it again, both sides are responsible.



Well, I am speechless.

Kudos.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Sorry champ it's not for the Iraqis.

Car bomb kills 15, wounds dozens in southern Iraq | Reuters

It was a monumental strategic blunder that has strengthend Iran.

Your attempted revisionism simply doesn't wash.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Snappy retort, I suppose that's the best you've got.  Figures given the intellectual level of your other posts.
> ...



As I said before, you're not very good at this.

The CIC gives the order to invade.  Congress gave Bush some particulars to ensure before he invaded.

The qualifiers for the use of force weren't met but Bush invaded anyway.  Not one Democrat ordered a single troop to fire a single bullet or to set a single foot in Iraq.

Bush owns this as do his apologists.




Fucking moron.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am starting to realize that these people who have been dead set against this war are panicked because its over and the quagmire bush lied people died bull shit is over
> ...




As I said earlier I agree both parties have been staunch supporter of our foriegn policy of interventionism, across the board.  

As far as the Kuwait/Iraq dust-up.  Kuwait was also over producing oil as well.  It was a huge problem in OPEC that summer.  Why didn't GHB have our embassador tell Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pack with them (we didn't).  Of course no Democrat ever brought up the fact that the dust-up was known and that an invasion itself was likely. Even though the President went on national television and said it was a suprise attack.  Why?  Becuase a huge military need justification for it's existance.  No huge enemies, no huge budget.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> As I said before, you're not very good at this.
> 
> The CIC gives the order to invade.  Congress gave Bush some particulars to ensure before he invaded.
> 
> ...




Utter bullshit, you partisan hack.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > As I said before, you're not very good at this.
> ...



Nope, it's historical fact now and you can't change it.



It must be tough for you to go through life with such hate and ignorance.  

Are you and JRK in the same elementary school?  The public school system is failing you both miserably.


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How many people were murdered in the US last night?
Is there a difference?


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I did not realize there was people who hate this country as much as you do, I guess I am nieve
Was you there?
who claims that is what happened/
do you have links?
are these "tales" going to go on for ever?
Do you realize that there has been 6 million jobs lost sense Obama took office?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*Drinking early again?*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > As I said before, you're not very good at this.
> ...



Uncensored has always been a partisan ideologue, who will not own up to right wing progressive neo-con imperialism and its failures in Iraq.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I think the question has to be how many Americans were killed by Car-bombs last night and every night.

How many police stations were targeted with bombs yesterday in America?

Do you see the difference?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The Iraq/Kuwait dispute?  Where Iraq was accusing Kuwait of overproducing and driving the price down as well as slant drilling under the border? Or the fact the our president was getting breifings about it?  Or the conversation between our ambassador and Saddam?  Or the fact we had no mutual defense pact with Kuwait and publically said so during the build up to the crisis?  How about the Iraqi troop buildup, you do know our president was briefed about that as well.

I don't know if you are nieve or not.  You appear to be truly ignorant of history however.  I suggest you do your own research because I don't think you'd beleive any thing I post anyway.  

What does job loss since Jan 09 have to do with our blunderous invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*Can you not see the difference? How many people are there in America compared to Iraq? How many Americans were killed in a group by a car bomb?*


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Nope
violence is violence
You state that murder is different in Iraq because we won a war over there that you were against
bottom line is violence is violence no matter if its with a car bomb o a glock, 

Its the same as the president of this country and the president of Iraq as u see one of them
you See the president of Iraq as a radical, There are millions in this country that see BHO as a radical for just as good as reasons as you see the president of Iraq as a radical

Its all in you objective
mine is simple, un spun, truth
truth is both were elected by a majority and both have a past that can be spun

Murder is murder
Iran is a pimple on the ass of Texas, much less the US. Stop talking as though it is some kind of super power


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 16, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Iran is a pimple on the ass of Texas (correct, militarily) but a war with a smaller weaker country was "necessary"?


----------



## JRK (Sep 16, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



You see violence as a way to strengthen your argument
"see the war failed"
there are 15000 people murdered in this country last year. thats 41 every day and some how a bomb being used makes that nothing?
are u serious?

See this is the whole problem with this country
spun spin spam


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 16, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Your debating with JRK...is that a rhetorical question?


----------



## idb (Sep 17, 2011)

Just this minute watched Dick Cheney interviewed on VOA.
He admitted that there were no WMDs.

My blood was boiling at that point because that meant he was dishonouring the memory of those brave soldiers that served in Iraq.
F***king hippy liberal!!!


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 17, 2011)

*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *

Let' see..*Cuz we never should have been there!!!*


----------



## idb (Sep 17, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *
> 
> Let' see..*Cuz we never should have been there!!!*



But Saddam was a bad man, and anyway, what about the yellowcake?.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 17, 2011)

idb said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *
> ...



Him and a hundred others.


----------



## domonkoz (Sep 17, 2011)

Let us not forget that we sent in the CIA to pay off sadam several times but unlike the dictators that play ball with us, he would not take a dime and refused to be bought.  Yes he was a horrid dictator, but the reason he became an enemy of the United States was due to us not being able to buy him and control him.  Its all just a money game, which is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but I guess when you dumb, you dumb.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*The boy is thick.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*These people were not killed because of a war started by another country invading America.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 17, 2011)

domonkoz said:


> Let us not forget that we sent in the CIA to pay off sadam several times but unlike the dictators that play ball with us, he would not take a dime and refused to be bought.  Yes he was a horrid dictator, but the reason he became an enemy of the United States was due to us not being able to buy him and control him.  Its all just a money game, which is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but I guess when you dumb, you dumb.



*The reason that America was able to march right into Iraq and defeat them is because many of Saddam's people were bought*


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

idb said:


> Just this minute watched Dick Cheney interviewed on VOA.
> He admitted that there were no WMDs.
> 
> My blood was boiling at that point because that meant he was dishonouring the memory of those brave soldiers that served in Iraq.
> F***king hippy liberal!!!



you have a link to that exact quote?
every one admitted that the stockpiles we thought he had did not exist
no-one has admitted that there was zero and no-one has admitted that those weapons did not exist 9-11-2001

The one thing no-one can de bunk is the 500 munitions that were found that had banned material in the war heads as well as the Iraqi govt admitting there was 6500 of these munitions
Th UN confirms this
Where did they go

As far as dishonouring the troops?
The only ones doing that are those who claim this mission failed and was for no reason


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

FactFinder said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *
> 
> Let' see..*Cuz we never should have been there!!!*



This is not what our elected officials felt then and now
even though we are done in Iraq and thanks to GWB in 2008 we will be gone in 4 months (there is talk of keeping 10,000 there, not confirmed yet)


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> domonkoz said:
> 
> 
> > Let us not forget that we sent in the CIA to pay off sadam several times but unlike the dictators that play ball with us, he would not take a dime and refused to be bought.  Yes he was a horrid dictator, but the reason he became an enemy of the United States was due to us not being able to buy him and control him.  Its all just a money game, which is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but I guess when you dumb, you dumb.
> ...


*

no nukes with each quote your leaving the reality train further and further*


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



No most of those killed here last night were killed for a fuccking chunk of coke cooked down and called crack

Nothing to do with freedoms, peace, and the preservation of life for years to come in a country that weapons, war and killing was all it existed for until 2003


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> You see violence as a way to strengthen your argument "see the war failed" there are 15000 people murdered in this country last year. thats 41 every day and some how a bomb being used makes that nothing?  are u serious?  See this is the whole problem with this country spun spin spam



JRK, where you normally fail is that you do not comprehend contextualism, and once again you prove my point here.

Murder in this country depends on its causes, and that's where you mess up.  The murders in Iraq were mostly then and mostly now because of our neo-con progressive right wing imperialistc adventures in Iraq.

Until you can demonstrate you truly understand the dynamics of this issue, you are merely providing a laughter track for the rest of us.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



A report published last week by the Government Accountability Office has revealed that the United States is "not fully able to account for US nuclear material overseas," including separated plutonium and more than 16,000 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. The US lost track of thousands of kilos of deadly "weapon-usable" plutonium and uranium that it gave to countries as Colombia, Chile (during the chummy Pinochet years), South Africa, the EU nations, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, China, Egypt, Iran, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Israel.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11920.pdf

So bearing in mind that the US has already lost vast quantities of nuclear weapons material and has replaced a terrorist-supporting government in Baghdad with a government made up of actual terrorists, do you think that if Americans knew in 2002 that they'd have to spend trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and tens of thousands of wounded to achieve this, would they have supported the invasion of iraq?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > domonkoz said:
> ...


*

That happens to be the truth.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*Just this minute watched Dick Cheney interviewed on VOA.
He admitted that there were no WMDs.*


----------



## idb (Sep 17, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


He's still a belligerent bastard though isn't he?


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...




The iraq war was about cleaning house
To start with war sux
killig sux
evil people suck

We ignored OBL and looked what it got us. Saddam gace us no choice in this matter and at the end of the day we had no choice
This was a war that had to be won. Saddam had ignored the world for years. 

Dont forget there was close to 60 countries invaded with us. The UN decided not to play, we found out the real reason later

Do you allow a maniac that had a proven record that Saddam had to continue after 9-11 is the real qustion
When the UN tells the world 18 months after 9-11 that Saddam has 6500 muntions missing, that he has anthrax and nerev gas un accounted for, and later we find he has control of 550 metric tons of Yellow cake

Of course we take him out

One other item
most of the soldiers killed i Iraq were killed fighting al quidea troops, not Iraqis

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a popular name for the Iraqi division of the international Salafi jihadi militant organization al-Qaeda. It is recognized as a part of the greater Iraqi insurgency.

The group was founded in 2003 and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004. It was initially operating under the name Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: &#1580;&#1605;&#1575;&#1593;&#1577; &#1575;&#1604;&#1578;&#1608;&#1581;&#1610;&#1583; &#1608;&#1575;&#1604;&#1580;&#1607;&#1575;&#1583;*, "Group of Monotheism and Jihad"); since 2004 its official name is Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[4] Foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters are widely thought to play a key role in its network.[5]
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents [hide]
1 As Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad 
1.1 Origins 
1.2 Goals and tactics 
1.3 Activities 
2 As Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn 
2.1 Goals and umbrella organizations 
2.2 Strength and activity 
2.3 Rise and decline of al-Qaeda in Iraq 
2.4 Inciting sectarian violence through mass terrorism 
2.5 Operations outside Iraq and other activities 
2.6 Conflicts with the other groups 
2.7 Transformation and attempted resurgency 
3 Some key members 
4 See also 
5 References 
6 External links 
6.1 Articles 
6.2 Videos


----------



## JRK (Sep 17, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Look Cheney knows that this event took place in 06 I promise you
He also knows that we did not find the piles we thought they had
It is confusing to me why you guys continue to argue a point that you know is not true. This info was presented to congress
do you have any idea how far under the prison these people would be if that was a lie?


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yes... WHAT was their crime???

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

Thursday 28 October 2004 19.00 EDT

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.

More

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Contumacious (Sep 17, 2011)

JRK said:


> [The iraq war was about cleaning house........



.......*...Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan*

*According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011.*

Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan &#8212; Infoplease.com Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 17, 2011)

The three trillion dollar war
*
The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions*

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.

More


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Can you answer the question please. here it is again ;

_So bearing in mind that the US has already lost vast quantities of nuclear weapons material and has replaced a terrorist-supporting government in Baghdad with a government made up of actual terrorists, do you think that if Americans knew in 2002 that they'd have to spend trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and tens of thousands of wounded to achieve this, would they have supported the invasion of iraq?_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You are lying, period.  The admin would have yelled from the roof tops if they had found the stock piles of WMDs, particularly nuclear material, they had been warning the world about.

This is not about interpretation now, it is about your deliberate lies.


----------



## JRK (Sep 18, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



I did
i ignored it for a reason, With respect to so many that have a lack of understanding of how one resolves issues
That event you alleged happened had nothing to do with Saddam
I answered you question thus


----------



## JRK (Sep 18, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The three trillion dollar war
> *
> The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions*
> 
> ...



dude you thread is so far off I feel sorry for you and anyone who thinks that is true
to satrt with the cost of the war is over
it cost no more to have the 10,000 (at most) to keep those in Iraq as ir would to keep them in Germany
that leaves over 2 trillion dollars to take care of the wounded according to those numbers
Do you realize thats medicae X 4 years fo millions with cancer, etc....

CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 18, 2011)

The outsourcing of the war to private no-bid contracters, instead of doing the work within the Corps of Engineers and hiring native Iraqis at decent wages to rebuild their country, demonstrated that privatization of war continues to be stupid and financially ruinous, as well as missing a wonderful opportunity to take away nationwide Iraqi support for the insurgency.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The three trillion dollar war
> ...



DUDE...your right wing propaganda ONLY INCLUDES the cost for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

I am interested to see how our military hardware and armaments regenerate themselves magically...


----------



## JRK (Sep 18, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



1) mosr have been killed by al quida
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) more people have been murdered in the US during the same time
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009

3) Saddam killed as many as 1 million iraqis
[edit] Number of VictimsAccording to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You have just demonstrated a perfect logical fallacy: comparison of unrelated objects.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Where's the answer? Can you repeat your exact answer in your reply please?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



*This is what I have been saying.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 18, 2011)

JRK is the classic right wing progressive neo-con imperialist (a Cheney clone) who thinks Americans will still buy the Big Lie, No Nukes.

He has not been able to carry one argument here.


----------



## JRK (Sep 18, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Did you ever hear GWB scream from the roof top about anything after he got what he wanted
this info from the DOD is not mine
the info about the yellow cake being in Iraq until we invade is not my info

I am just copying links
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
thats a link to that very info being given to congress
you think you can lie to congress and get away with it?

BUSHS ONE MILLION POUNDS OF NUCLEAR SILENCE
By Maj. General Jerry Curry (retired)

Many in the mainstream news media determined to discredit President Bush at all costs and not to give coverage to anything positive concerning him or his administration.

There is one exception to this trend. On July 6, 2008, The Associated Press reported that President Bush quietly removed over one million pounds of Yellowcake uranium. Although the story didnt get picked up by many news organizations and though it did not portray the President in glowing terms, for those who could read between the lines, it spoke volumes of the great courage of George Bush and why he is worthy of being our President. 

President Bush had to know as soon as the war ended and the nuclear research facility at Tuwaitha, Iraq was in our hands that it contained 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake (over one million pounds). This meant that while yellowcake is not a weapon of mass destruction, it is an ingredient that is used in producing WMDs. It is not used for peaceful research or energy generation. 

So while President Bush was being horribly beaten up by many in the news media and self-serving politicians, he could stop the beating by simply telling the world that our forces are in possession of the uranium yellowcake; therefore Saddam did have an active WMD program, though he did not actually have an assembled WMD sitting in a warehouse.

CLOSE THAT YELLOW CAKE HOLE: One Million Pounds cleared from Iraq

links that explain it better than I can


----------



## JRK (Sep 18, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



1) your debating links, not me like this one
CLOSE THAT YELLOW CAKE HOLE: One Million Pounds cleared from Iraq

that was 2008, the press and you made your minds up 2003

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

This was in 2006 and was a public event in congress
the press and you had been calling GWB a liar for 3 years, this should hae been front page news
ask yourself why it was not?
Fox coverd it If I recall, that was it
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com

You know this speaks volumes of how much the main stream media sux and how much you that are gainst the success Iraq is will go to dis honor the facts
These are links people from the DOD, a retired Officer and fox news, not me


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 19, 2011)

*They would have been justifying the invasion to the world had they found any WMDs.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> *They would have been justifying the invasion to the world had they found any WMDs.*



Dude there was 60 other nations invaded with us
There was those who were buying iraqi oil on the black market who did not

Who else was we suppose to tell


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You are either a lying sack of shit, or a moron...which one is it?

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier. One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article cited in the example above:

"Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts."

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Sack of shit?
So your link is better than mine?
answer me this dick head
Why did it take 18 years to get that yellow cake out of there if snopes is correct?

All that does is confirm there was Yellow cake, that it was not secure and that the US military took control of it after  invading
no different than what I allway have said
Now dick head you go on ignore


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...











JRK said:


> Now dick head you go on ignore


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I know
what a baby these libs are with the name calling and all of that
Grown men may not agree, but grown men dont resort to what a 10 year old just because of it


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Gee little boy, I though I was on 'ignore'...another lie from the lying sack of shit.

There is no dispute about FACTS...

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK failed in this discussion by the third page.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



When someone beats JRK in debate, they get put on ignore.

A perfect plan that allows JRK to continue to spew is falsehoods without having to counter any of the many, many posts that debunk his misinformation.

Join the club!


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



look dude your off the reservation with this. I dont know how one gets to the point your at, bur all I can say is its not normal in my world
The yellow cake has 100 different stories and theories

Calling your fellow american sack of shit and all the other stuff that goes with it has no place in this world, this conversation, nor my life
I will pray for you and the ones you love
Dude think about what your saying and who your saying it to
It nuts


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The three trillion dollar war
> *
> The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportions*
> 
> ...



It's interesting that the "conservatives" are willing to spend three trillion dollars on wars of choice but are unwilling to spend less money to provide the most basic help to American poor.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 19, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The three trillion dollar war
> ...



True conservatives are against both, that's why a true conservative is almost impossible to find these days.

Same goes for true liberals, a true liberal would be furious with Obama for being anti-gay marriage, true liberals are all about free trade and capitalism, not the type who want huge tariffs and a bunch of big government bureacracies to take the place of capitalism in many instances.  They'd also take a HUGE issue their party's love for the War on Drugs, which they don't.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



SO...

The United Nations, the international community and the scientific community are all lying just to smear your man crush Bush.

And Bush kept quite about this "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S because he is too modest to toot his own horn...

UN...fucking...BELIEVABLE


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

> Quote: Originally Posted by JRK





> The yellow cake has 100 different stories and theories



No it doesn't.  

The history of the yellow cake is common knowledge, another type of knowledge that you lack.


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Your 3 trillion dollar number is not correct, not even close for Iraq
CBO: Eight Years Of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News
The conservative knew the Iraqi war would be over as it will be this year and all reality the cost ended some time ago
The conservative also knows that the bases closed in Saudi, Kuwait as well as the money saved being gave to the UN in time would have been in the billions
Why does the liberal feel the need to exaggerate?


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Really?
find a link prior to 2008 about that yellow cake
I mean one that is dated 1991, not 2008
I never stated it was discovered in 2008 anyway
best I can tell w got our hands on it in 2003

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

*The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."*

Dude you really need to chill out also
Allot of this information should have been made public by ABC, CBS and NBC, not just fox
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Most of the violence in Iraq is politically motivated.   A little violence in the US is policially motivated.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 19, 2011)

domonkoz said:


> Let us not forget that we sent in the CIA to pay off sadam several times but unlike the dictators that play ball with us, he would not take a dime and refused to be bought.  Yes he was a horrid dictator, but the reason he became an enemy of the United States was due to us not being able to buy him and control him.  Its all just a money game, which is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but I guess when you dumb, you dumb.




At the time of the invasion of Kuwait the US had taken Iraq off the list of countries who support terrorist and put Iraq on the most favorable trading partners list.  We also loaned them 4 billion dollars (which was defaulted on and which the US Taxpayer had to pay).  He thought the Bush (41) administration would continue to look the other way, just like Raygun did when he used banned chemical weapons against Iran and later against the rebelious Kurds.  Why else would our embassador tell him that we had no opinion about the brewing conflict between Iraq and Kuwait?  It wasn't until then that he actually turned on the us.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com



> The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.



So your link tells us that Saddam had no WMD program in the 1990's JRK? 



> Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
> 
> "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and *not the WMDs for which this country went to war*."



"*not the WMDs for which this country went to war*", can it be more clear JRK?

Read a little you f-ing douche.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...









Iraq Nuclear File: Key Findings

INVO's extensive inspection activities in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 resulted in a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. The programme was very well funded and was aimed at the indigenous development and exploitation of technologies for the production of weapons-grade nuclear material and production and manufacturing of nuclear weapons. IAEA report S/1997/779 to the UN Security Council provides a detailed overview of Agency activities in Iraq and its assessment of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapon programme. An update and summary of this report can be found in S/1998/927 and S/1999/393. The reports cover all Agency activities in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. 

Acquisition of weapons usable material


Indigenous production and overt procurement of uranium compounds
Iraq Nuclear Sites

    Imported 4,006 kg of natural uranium and 6,005 kg of depleted uranium (DU) from Italy in 1979
    Imported 1,767 kg low enriched uranium (LEU) from Italy in 1982
    Imported almost 50 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Russia and France
    Procured 429 drums containing 138,098 kg yellowcake from Portugal in 1980
    Procured 487 drums containing 148,348 kg yellowcake from Portugal in 1982
    Procured 432 drums containing 137,435 kg of yellowcake from Niger in 1981
    Procured 426 drums containing 139,409 kg of yellowcake from Niger in 1982
    Imported 24,260 kg of uranium dioxide from Brazil between 1981-82
    Produced 109 tonnes of uranium in 168 tonnes of yellowcake at Al Qaim uranium recovery plant, which was constructed between 1982-84
    Produced 420 drums containing 99,457 kg uranium dioxide at Al Jesira uranium conversion facility
    Produced UF6 at Rashdiya Engineering and Design Centre
    Processed uranium dioxide to produce UF4, uranium metal and UF6 at Tuwaitha Chemical Laboratories
    Processed UO2 and yellowcake to produce UO2, U3O8, UO3, UO4, UF4, and uranium metal at Tuwaitha
    Experimental Research Laboratory for Fuel Fabrication
    Processed UO2 to produce UCl4 at Tuwaitha Chemical Engineering Research laboratories


Development of indigenous uranium enrichment capabilities

Electro-magnetic isotope separation (EMIS)

    Designed and constructed electromagnets and different magnet separators systems between 1982-87 in Tuwaitha
    Designed and constructed one R50 and three R100 separator systems starting from 1985 and operated them until 1991 in Tuwaitha
    Designed and constructed R120 and R60 separator systems in Tarmiya
    Produced 640 grams of enriched uranium with an average enrichment of 7.2%

Gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment

    Initiated in 1982 Constructed related facilities at Tuwaitha and Rashdiya Manufactured a barrier tube suitable for operation in UF6 in 1988

Gas centrifuge enrichment

    Initiated in 1987
    Built first oil centrifuge in 1987 and conducted laboratory trials; later shifted to magnetic bearing centrifuge
    Developed a series of sub-critical centrifuge designs in 1989
    Designed and assembled and tested magnetic centrifuges using a carbon composite rotor in 1990
    Construction work for the mass production of centrifuges and a pilot-scale cascade hall at Al Furat began in 1989
    R&D on chemical uranium enrichment also took place
    In 1981, laser isotopic separation work began and studied both atomic (AVLIS) and molecular (MLIS) technologies


Intended diversion of research reactor fuel

    Planned to divert highly enriched uranium, that was subjected to Agency safeguards, at Tuwaitha under a crash programme to use the material in the production of a nuclear weapon
    Installed a chemical processing plant at Tuwaitha in about three months in 1990 to extract HEU from research reactor fuel
    Had capability to commence the conversion of HEU from UNH to metal in 1991


Production and separation of plutonium

    Reactor design did not go beyond theoretical studies
    Used IRT-5000 to irradiate three indigenously fabricated natural uranium fuel elements
    Separated five grams of plutonium at laboratory-scale process line in Tuwaitha

Weaponisation

Facilities

    Tuwaitha had facilities and infrastructure for all Group Four activities except for the fabrication, handling, and testing of high explosives
    Experimented with high explosives to produce implosive shock waves
    Developed a 32-point electronic firing system using detonators and lenses developed at Al Qa Qa Tested firing system
    Tested flash X-ray systems, gas gun systems, fiber optics with fast response electronic equipment, high speed electronic streak cameras towards nuclear weapons
    Produced and recovered polonium by irradiating bismuth


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Gee, I wonder why Fox has different information?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK continues to get beaten back and forth like a Ronald McDonald punching doll.

At this point, simply gather the better of his nonsense and your answers, guys and gals, and send them to your local government and history professors and instructors at the local institutions.

JRK would have failed this assignment in a classroom dedicated to true educational principles.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 19, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't you love providing facts from JRK's own links ?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com
> ...



I told JRK that he doesn't have to go through life ignorant, that ignorance can be fixed with education...but he put me on ignore when I pointed this out.  

Yes, I really enjoy the irony.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

bigrebnc has been folded many times by the facts in his OPs.  One of the great ones was that "Hitler was a socialist", which foundered on the expert evidence that bigrebnc himself provided.  What a hoot.


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> domonkoz said:
> 
> 
> > Let us not forget that we sent in the CIA to pay off sadam several times but unlike the dictators that play ball with us, he would not take a dime and refused to be bought.  Yes he was a horrid dictator, but the reason he became an enemy of the United States was due to us not being able to buy him and control him.  Its all just a money game, which is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but I guess when you dumb, you dumb.
> ...



That claim was made in the movie HBO did on Saddam
I am not going into debate on that matter
Look why did Saddam not cooperate?
what was he hiding
what was he sitting on'
what did he smuggle out
what did he bury (besides his air force)

after 18 months we had no choice, what happened in 1991 had little to do with the events of 2003


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com
> ...



You know what amazes me the most?
you guys with your rudeness and childish behavior think that I am trying to fabricate something that is not true
That link has both sides of that story 

What does the fact that Iraq had yellow cake in 2003 have to do with the fact that Iraq had yellow cake in 2003?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK continues to fail.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

> JRK
> Registered User
> Member #28394





> That link has both sides of that story



Ok, show me in that link where that same offical says they *are* the WMD's for which we invaded.

Show me where he says they are proof Saddam has a WMD program in the 1990's.


I can show you, in your link, where he said it wasn't either.


Your turn to show me "both sides"...


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



All you have done is confirm there was yellow cake in Iraq
really allot more than that
your link claims there was enriched uranium in Iraq, I have never made that claim 
That whole thing is also very confusing. the yellow cake that was found by the US troops in 2003 was not enriched and as I recall raw is the word that was used
All you have done is made this entire subject more confusing and in all reality showed there was more than one pile of yellow cake? really to me have enriched uranium under Saddam's control is worse than the other, And until we invaded in 2003 I am not sure why anyone would think it was not in his control if he choose it to be

One other item to think on
why did this stuff stay in Iraq when Saddam was suppose to be destroying this kind of stuff until 2008? And why is it you think the statement that US troops found this same exact stuff in 2003 is a lie?
who was there watching this stuff in 2003?

I have offered both sides of this story, and neither takes away the fact that in 2003 there was yellow cake in Iraq, and according to you highly enriched uranium also


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



All you have done is confirm there was yellow cake in Iraq
really allot more than that
your link claims there was highly enriched uranium in Iraq, I have never made that claim 
That whole thing is also very confusing. the yellow cake that was found by the US troops in 2003 was not enriched
All you have done is made this entire subject more confusing and in all reality showed there was more than one pile of yellow cake. Look you think I am spinning this?
All I have ever done is supply links that stated that US troops found this raw yellow cake in 2003 after invading and we secretly shipped it out in 2008
neither being a lie according to the press. That stuff you describe above is in a far different state than I have ever claimed

One other item to think on
why did this stuff stay in Iraq when Saddam was suppose to be destroying this kinfd of stuff until 2008? And why is it you think the statement that US troops found this same exact stuff in 2003 is a lie?
who was there watching this stuff in 2003?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK is now spamming because he cannot carry his argument further: fail.


----------



## JRK (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



by the way
where in all of this did I ever state Saddam was building anything?
having
owning
in possession of when it was against the UN mandate is not nor would it ever be the same as the fabrication of
The link tells you what you want to get out of it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

Whatever Saddam violated of UN resolutions does not justify US neo-con imperialistic adventurism in Iraq.

JRK continues to defend American war criminals.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 19, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently you still can't read it for yourself JRK.



> "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and *not the WMDs for which this country went to war*."



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


What a maroon.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK is not very bright at all, and he is certainly immorally insistent he is right.

So he is ethically flawed, values deficient, and stupid to boot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2011)

JRK is not very bright at all, and he is certainly immorally insistent he is right.

So he is ethically flawed, values deficient, and stupid to boot.


----------



## idb (Sep 20, 2011)

I can't see how the Bush administration's reasons for the war can have any credibility when leading members were involved in PNAC which had been calling for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
The UN resolution/WMD arguments were a smoke screen to justify something they were going to do anyway.

It reminds me of Republican statements - that their most important mission is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president.
How can you take anything they say or do after that seriously?
How can anything they say or do not be viewed through the lens of those statements?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 20, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > domonkoz said:
> ...



*Saddam was trying to fool the Iranians into thinking that he was better armed than he was. Taking out Saddam opened the door for Iran.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 20, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



That theory as well as the theory that he buried some of this stuff as well as some of it was taken out of Iraq all have merit
Its like i have said all along, the real root cause of the Iraq war was Saddam
His lying combined with all intel pointing to him having a boat load of bad stuff 

We know he buried part of his air force in the desert

Advanced Russian fighters found in the sand in Iraq-Truth!

Any way, that theory has merit, but no more than the others nor any less

S*addam had Munitions that were classified as WMDs,* but the stock piles that the CIA and the UN said he had have never been found


----------



## JRK (Sep 20, 2011)

idb said:


> I can't see how the Bush administration's reasons for the war can have any credibility when leading members were involved in PNAC which had been calling for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
> The UN resolution/WMD arguments were a smoke screen to justify something they were going to do anyway.
> 
> It reminds me of Republican statements - that their most important mission is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president.
> ...



If this is true, what you say
then why is it the UN was saying basically the same things the US was saying?

What was the UNs reason for lying then (according to you?)( I think the truth was what the UN was saying as far as weapons go)

And as far as BHO being a 1 term, why in Gods name would you want this guy to be a 2 term?
He has no excuses. He had congress for the first 2 years and he threw it away on obtaining a pile of cash for the unions and the health-care bill that the majority does not want and we cannot afford in the form it is


----------



## idb (Sep 20, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see how the Bush administration's reasons for the war can have any credibility when leading members were involved in PNAC which had been calling for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
> ...



Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 20, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



So was Bush's...

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq 

*Paul O'Neill George Bush's Treasury Secretary*

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."


----------



## JRK (Sep 20, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Look up the US congress if you want intent
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 20, 2011)

American law has its force in . . . America.

It does not apply in other jurisdictions, JRK, and if the senior Bushies travel to certain parts of Europe, they will never come home.


----------



## idb (Sep 20, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You're right.
I understand that there was lobbying from PNAC for this but you are right...there was intent from Washington years before the WTC attacks.


----------



## JRK (Sep 20, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Saddam knew if he did not fix it and fix it better than any-one else he was done
He made joke of it


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 20, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



*Bush once told the film maker David O. Russell that 'if he became President', he would probably go in and finish the job that his father started.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > 1) remove saddam
> ...



Its stable enough we are getting out of there
Maliki: US troops will leave Iraq on time | Iraq News | Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite TV Network
And we are going to have a embassy there as well


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jrk said:
> ...


 
Until the bad guys blow it up.

You are a right-wing progressive neo-con fool.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Christians are fleeing a country with a gov't based on Islam run by a Hezbollah agent and that's his idea of stable.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Come to find out the Christians have been fleeing sense 2003 and sense then there has been about 200 killed in a country that has been at war and has about 100,000 killed sense then.
This obsession with making this war into a failure has gotten fairly desperate
Christians being killed in northern Iraq in run up to election | Christian News on Christian Today

I can also state that of the 41 people killed on average last night in this country many of them were radical, some were christian
Is this country not stable?
I am being told that being killed because your not a member of one gang in not the same as being murdered because your the member of a gang that believed that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You're not even countering what I'm saying.

Christians fleeing a government based on Islam run by a Hezbollah agent=stable

I'm glad you're not a chemist.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



look you see this war as a total failure and this world was better off with Saddam in power
Fine dude
I dont care anymore what you think, get it?
There is nothing there to counter
dont you get it?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I feel this world is better off with the hundreds of thousands of dead americans/iraqis still in it, they weren't worth trading Hussein for Hezbollah, trading an insane dictator for a terrorist.

I get it, you don't.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did not call for a US led invasion and occupation did it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2011)

Nope, it did not.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




I dont recall stating it did. There was a question of intent prior to 2001
I only supplied more proof that there was


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




And there was absolutely no intent on using US soldiers to do what was the responsiblity/duty of the Iraqis themselves.  None.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You really aren't interested in the truth are you JRK?

That by itself exposes you as a neo-con.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Boo your fighting a losing battle here
1) 9-11-2001, the game was over, Saddam is given ultimatum
2) 10-2002 congress agrees
3) 1-2003 UN admits its not working, no matter how you read Blix es 1-27 report, The UN is getting no where
4) 3-2003 Saddam has had his last chance, over 50 countries invade
5) 2006 proof is provided to make it legal with congress as directed with the DOD link I use
6) how about that, 2003 there was still yellow cake in Iraq, its sold to Canada. stories as to who had it when are from A-Z. it being there is overlooked 
7) 2008 U.S., that speaks for its self
8) here we are about to end it as the 2008 agreement mandates

There is nothing more to ti really
we won
God bless those who gave so much to do accomplish what they did

1) Saddam is gone
2) the country is stable as the US is
3) there is a republic with women involved running the country and voting and had a 62% turn-out last election


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

The face of defeat.

http://www.picupine.com/pictures/16762-50751.jpg


----------



## 8537 (Sep 21, 2011)

In all the bullshit in this thread, this might take the cake:

"[Iraq] is stable as the US is"

..and not because of the broken English it employs.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

A working pic:







Bonus points for anybody who can remember what Cheney was doing on stage with the Ayatollah. After all, the liberal media replayed this press conference endlessly.

Even more bonus points for naming the two Ayatollahs in the pictures behind Cheney and naming the original name of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

8537 said:


> In all the bullshit in this thread, this might take the cake:
> 
> "[Iraq] is stable as the US is"
> 
> ..and not because of the broken English it employs.



There are more people murdered in this country than Iraq
there are less people ho vote in this country than in Iraq
sounds stable to me


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> A working pic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what does that have to do with the price of coffee and cigarettes in Baghdad?


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News

now who was it saying that there are no car bombs in the US and that we are far more stable than Iraq?

We avg 41 murders per day in this country people


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

8537 said:


> In all the bullshit in this thread, this might take the cake:
> 
> "[Iraq] is stable as the US is"
> 
> ..and not because of the broken English it employs.



I had to look at his post twice to make sure he said it, good god he's helpless.

Minority religions have been fleeing Iraq ever since we started blowing it up 2003, just like you see here in the U.S........................................


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News
> 
> now who was it saying that there are no car bombs in the US and that we are far more stable than Iraq?
> 
> We avg 41 murders per day in this country people



307 million people live in the US

31 million people live in Iraq


Do you understand NOW why more people die in the US?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News
> ...



*You are wasting your time with this eejit.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News
> ...



I never claimed any different
look at what point is this in your face troops you have failed like we told you you would stuff going to stop?

Murder is murder

We did not have a war going on in this country when we had more murders than Iraq did
Do you understand NOW that your obsession with claiming this war was a failure is your opinion?

Saddam is gone, done, dead
the country is stable
a republic has been born from those events

And as God as my witness you dis agree with that simple, accurate premise 
Bud your on a level of desperation that the war in Iraq failed beyond words, in fact I  dont what else to say to you

Dude get a life, PLEASE
for the people who love you, it dont matter any more okay?
as anti american as you are there is nothing else we have say to each other
just go away


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



what is with you  2 that are so desperate to ignore every fact so that you can be so anti american?
I mean if I was lying, that one thing
but I am not lying

 started with the war was illegal
X
X
X
nope
then it was GB lied
X
X
X
then it was this
nope
then that
nope
Now you have gotten to the point in which Iraq is not stable because its murder rate has less people to draw against then the US
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
LOOK YOUR ANTI AMERICA
WE GET IT OK


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

dr.drock said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > in all the bullshit in this thread, this might take the cake:
> ...



drock
cuckooo?
Me?
This is all you do all day is tell people how bad this country is and how wrong it is and there you are
doing what?
Share with us in this evil country that has done so many bad things in this world what is it exactly you do?
I do not care any more dude
go away


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Name one thing that is bs in this thread
any of you anti american punks name one thing i have posted that was bs?

Stable
prove to me its not as stable as the us


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Name one thing that is bs in this thread
> any of you anti american punks name one thing i have posted that was bs?
> 
> Stable
> prove to me its not as stable as the us



Lol here we go again, if you don't support the war you're anti-american.


The US is the best country in the world, me stating our gov't did something stupid doesn't make me anti-american.  Imagine some Obamabot telling you you're anti-american for not supporting Obamacare, it'd be just as stupid as you saying someone is anti-american for not supporting us blowing up Iraq.


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Name one thing that is bs in this thread
> ...




dude I have never meet any body as anti american as you are and the war has nothing to do with it
its who and what you are
there has been so much good and accurate information presented to you on this subject and right in the troops face you have called all of us liars
They believe as much as i do, it was the right thing to do
And it does not matter what the subject was you in desperation cringed to every ounce of rebuttle to the point in where you are debating there are different definitions of murder and that women voting as well as more people voting in Iraq than in this country means nothing, it is ignored
Dude you have spent days upon days saying the same thing over and over and if Obama was so against the war then why in gods name did we finish the job???????????????
It has nothing to do with the war
Your wrong, your facts are wrong and you were lied too

not one time have you just said the info does not matter, I am against the war

because there was weapons
there was yellow cake
there was Un sanctions being broke 
There was ties with OBL and Saddam
Case Closed | The Weekly Standard
Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties
now get on your I am a no good MF liar
and that the aIraqi war was wrong because you said it was and don let any facts get in the way of that

Being anti war is me bud
I hate it
being anti american is you
war has nothing to do wit it


----------



## JRK (Sep 21, 2011)

i have no issue of anyone being again t this war
But to be against it and use information that is false to be against it is immoral and I cannot stand it in any event in life

There was WMDs found
pile? no
brand new? no
ready to kill? no
Bottom line there existed were they should not have

it starts there
The UN statements of 6500 of there munitions
anthrax
nerve gas
it goes there

yellow cake, absolutely there
"in the hands of who?
Who was watching it?
with what ink pens?
in 2003 it was in the hands of the US
no ifs, no maybes.

these are simple un deniable facts that the left pretends does not exist
being against the war and ignoring these facts is not the same as being against the war, its not in the same world


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> i have no issue of anyone being again t this war
> But to be against it and use information that is false to be against it is immoral and I cannot stand it in any event in life
> 
> There was WMDs found
> ...



It might be that there is no help for you after all JRK.  You've been rebutted and debunked over and over again and yet, here you are, presenting the same tired falsehoods all over again.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 21, 2011)

Biden claimed Iraq was Obama's accomplishment....it seems some dumbfuck libs here didn't get the memo.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Who's fighting.  I'm just posting 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. 

Bush would have eventually gone to war with Iraq. 

The UN worked.  Iraq had no WMD programs in 2003.

Yellowcake?  

Hahahaha!


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> A working pic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Selling them oil field equipment?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News
> 
> now who was it saying that there are no car bombs in the US and that we are far more stable than Iraq?
> 
> We avg 41 murders per day in this country people



Car bomb huh? Wow who were they targeting?  How many did they kill?

wait---a man and his kids,,,,,,in the car?

Poor kids.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Redrum. Redrum.

The troops have not failed.  The leadership did.

Regime change in Iraq was not worth the life of one US soldier.  Got that?  Not one.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > A working pic:
> ...



Handing over the country to them at the official handover ceremony once they'd managed to get Bush to agree to pull all the troops out. This was the Iranians' moment of victory and the moment they got to rub America's --represented by the idiot Cheney -- nose in the whole thing. Or at least that's how the Arab media described it. The US media blacked the entire event out and didn't turn up to the press conference.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Damn I  miss it.  I though for sure Dick was getting a check.  Okay bonus round...Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Idontnoha?


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




I used to have a Youtube link to the Al Jazeera coverage of the presser. You've never seen anybody look so uncomfortable in your life. It's a shame Americans didn't get to see it. Personally I blame the liberal media for blacking the entire thing out.

That's Grand Ayatollah Sistani, peace be upon him, on the right and Grand Ayatollah Bakr Al-Sadr, the father of Moqtada Al-Sadr*, peace be upon them, on the right.

*The guy Bush was calling a "terrorist." So that's Cheney standing under a picture of an Iranian Ayatollah and the father of somebody running an anti-American terrorist group that killed American soldiers and standing next to an Ayatollah whose orgganisation's military wing was trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and contains former Revolutionary guard members and who fought for Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. that's the kind of delicious situation that the liberal media could have had a lot of fun with. Wall-to-wall blanket coverage, the whole thing on playback loops for a few days, but no, for some reason the liberal media refused to touch the whole event.


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



How much do you pay for a gallon of gas?


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



About ten dollars.


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Sweet...a lot of taxes paid to your government for that gallon of gas, huh?
What's your tax rate?  Do you have a VAT?


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I currently live in Britain. I pay 50% tax here and they do have a VAT.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm also guessing that that's Koranic verse on the big board behind the humiliated Cheney. Either that or something really insulting, maybe the Iranian for "thanks for all the oil fuckwit!"


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Yeah, that's what I thought.  Just keep hammering on the US, now it just sounds like sour grapes.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 21, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > In all the bullshit in this thread, this might take the cake:
> ...


No, that's simply not true.  Nevermind that there are less than 1/10th the number of people.



> there are less people ho vote in this country than in Iraq


No, that's simply not true.  More people voted in the last presidential election than exist in Iraq.

Like I said, this line of bullshit is extraordinary even for this thread.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Looks like I hit a nerve with the Cheney presser thing.

I'm an American citizen. I pay taxes in the US too. So what?


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Nothing to do with Cheney...it's more about you than anything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2011)

All of this means nothing.

The war was a failure.  Iran grows closer to Iraq every day, and our soldiers have died for nothing.

Bush et al can never travel to Europe again.

End of story.


----------



## Meister (Sep 21, 2011)

Being what he's all about on a personal level...I don't think he would go to Europe anyways.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 21, 2011)

His wife and daughters should be able to travel without any problem, I hope, but I don't see Ms. Laura going anywhere without him.  I think she is a class act.  I think he was a basically decent guy out of his league and manipulated very easily to very bad ends by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Of course it is. What really bugs you is that I'm right.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 21, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Nah, that's just Dick's Grand look.  He was probably doing business with the Iranians when it was prohibited so he might have known them anyway...

The Liberal Media you refer to is myth.  American media is just that, American media for mer'kins consumers.  We have this nice big fued going between the Dems and Rebs to distract while the real decisions are still made in back room deals between the real powerbrokers.

The Liberal Media.  Were they liberal when they helped the Bush Administration morph america's outrage at the 9-11 attacks into an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab nation that was not a significant threat to us or had anything to do with the attacks.  But are they really state controlled owellion proaganda outlets or just profit motivated corporations jumping on the attention bandwagon?  Everybody loves to watch a good ...wait a minute, sorry I got to go, my favorite show is on.  

Cya.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 22, 2011)

Meister said:


> Being what he's all about on a personal level...I don't think he would go to Europe anyways.



*He never traveled before he was President.*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> His wife and daughters should be able to travel without any problem, I hope, but I don't see Ms. Laura going anywhere without him.  I think she is a class act.  I think he was a basically decent guy out of his league and manipulated very easily to very bad ends by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.



*Kinky Friedman said that Bush was a good guy but he was wearing a Republican's suit.*


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



That's your opinion, the US senate and the president of the US dis agreed with you
The only people who failed are the ones who lied about the invasion and brought har to our great nation
remind you of any-one?


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News
> ...



Dude you pathetic
none of this is a joke and every item you have used to run our troops and this country down, your going to get right back in your face
When you run down the success that is Iraq, you run down our troops anf the sacrifice they volunteered for 
Just go away and be miserable else where
I feel sorry for you boo, I really do
Your smarter than this and there is people who love u that know it


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



That picture probably is a fake, typical liberal myths about there in ability to cope with the real world and make rash decisions based on the facts


----------



## Meister (Sep 22, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



What really bugs me is you're a dick.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



What amazes me about all of these guys
Drock, him Stark
They have no desire o find out the truth on these matters. There is little doubt that picture is a fake
Yet to them that picture is there holy water, their whole world

It never is about the facts, Its never about whats best for all of us. They never can find a place to agree to dis agree
I am so tired as is the rest of the country of there lies

Right in the middle of this debate about the bravery and sacrifices our troops made they throw that picture in and think its cute
well its not and neither are they


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> All of this means nothing.
> 
> The war was a failure.  Iran grows closer to Iraq every day, and our soldiers have died for nothing



We agree we are against the wars.  Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run.  I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel.  Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 22, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> It might be that there is no help for you after all JRK.  You've been rebutted and debunked over and over again and yet, here you are, presenting the same tired falsehoods all over again.



Is this opposite day?

No honest observer would agree with your claim. JRK has presented far more quality evidence than the detractors from the left have. You've offered nothing but partisan cheerleading; "Hate Bush, Hate BUSH, HATE BUSH, RAH!"

You're on crack if you think you've made a better showing than JRK.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



I provide fact after fact after fact, and you tell me to "shut up."

Who can't handle the truth?


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > All of this means nothing.
> ...



To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I don't support my stepsister smoking weed on weekends, yet she chooses to do it.

I support my stepsister as a person.

Is that obvious enough?

Disclaimer:  I'm not equating weed smoking to being a soldier, just showing how stupid it is to say you HAVE to support a war to support soldiers.  I'm sure plenty of americans who didn't support the war sent care packages etc to soldiers.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > It might be that there is no help for you after all JRK.  You've been rebutted and debunked over and over again and yet, here you are, presenting the same tired falsehoods all over again.
> ...



Thanks uncensored, your opposition is about the best affirmation I can receive!


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 22, 2011)

> JRK
> Registered User
> Member #28394





> There is little doubt that picture is a fake



Prove it.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Of course they did Dr. Drock.  

Support for the war and support for the troops are two different things but it serves the agenda of the apologists to cloud the debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 22, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Thanks uncensored, your opposition is about the best affirmation I can receive!



Funny, I was just thinking that your opposition was the best affirmation JRK could receive....


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You liberals stay confused. If you do not try and create reasons as to why you are so desperate to portray Iraq as a failure no-one would have an issue with your feelings with the war
Your not like your anti war because your against killing
its like your anti war because GWB was the president
Your anti war because he said that SADDAM had WMDS (so did every-one else including Saddam his self)
Your anti-war because GWB said Saddam was trying to get yellow-cake, even though he was all ready sitting on 550 metric tons, shit whats that matter?
right?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



That would be the Bush Administration and their cheerleaders.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Keep desperately trying to make this a partisan issue, I don't live in your partisan fantasy world.  I've never voted for a single democrat in my entire life.

I'm against the war because of killing.  I'm against the War in Libya (Obama's), I'm against the War in Afghanistan, I was for it in the beginning but I was never in favor of 10+ years of nation building.

I don't care if Saddam had WMD's or didn't, I don't give a damn about UN mandates, no conservative does.  China has hundreds of nukes, we do nothing (and shouldn't).

Again, don't give a damn about UN mandates.  I take the Constitution's sovereighnty seriously, so the UN can go fuck themselves.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



What is pathetic is you try to equate that blast with the car combs the terrorist have been using in Iraq.  

Your lies, only a simpleton would believe.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks uncensored, your opposition is about the best affirmation I can receive!
> ...



I'm sure you do, you also think an Authorization to Use Force is a Declaration of War.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



First lie. Again the Iraq war may be over for US combat soldiers however the sectarian violence still plagues the Iraqis.  

Second lie.  Of course you can support the troops(especially the returning damaged ones) while not supporting the invasion and occupation.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 22, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> I'm sure you do, you also think an Authorization to Use Force is a Declaration of War.



Not only that, I think water is wet....


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



*We supported the troops by not wanting them there in the first place.*


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 22, 2011)

Meister said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Yeah, I definitely hit a nerve with you on this one.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 22, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Raoul_Duke said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



If there really was a liberal media that image would have been burned onto every American's brain like the moon landings. But then if it was it would make it much more difficult to gain popular support for the next country we invade.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



How about this one? 








Here's the text that went with it :

U.S. President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, " I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country."



And here's how we viewed the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (that's the same Ayatollah and same organisation as the first humiliation photograph, just they changed the name of their group after they'd achieved their objective of an Islamic revolution in Iraq) :

28 March 2003
Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq

Washington -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a warning March


28 to two of Iraq's neighbors -- Syria and Iran -- not to interfere in


coalition efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.


[...]


He also warned the


Iranian-sponsored *Badr Corps* not to interfere with coalition military


operations inside Iraq lest its members be considered "as combatants."

[...]


Asked more about the *Badr Corps*, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the


direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."



Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq


So, from treating them as combatants who were trained and equipped and directed by Iran's (the central banker of terrorism) Islamic Revolutionary Guard to inviting their leader to the White house, shaking his hand in public and calling him "His Eminence" and saying he supports him! That smacks of appeasement to me. Maybe Bush is secretly French?




"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

M le Président Georges W Bush.
September 20th, 2001


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 22, 2011)

Raoul_Duke said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Raoul_Duke said:
> ...



Couldn't possibly have been said any better.

Our media for the most part had no problem, or even asked big questions, about the War in Iraq until it had already been going on for years.

Similar to what you're seeing right now in terms of the american media and the War in Libya.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

My god you libs have found every ounce of desperation to make sure you let our troops know how much you feel they have failed
what the fuck is this about now?
I cannot imagine how far out of touch you guys are

What exactly is it this new set of allegations are tryng to say?
There is not one ounce of truth to any thing your saying any more
you called me a liar and have yet to post one example

THE WAR IS OVER
WE DID EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO
IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, STOP THE NEXT MARINE YOU SEE AND TELL HIM, BUT STOP LYING ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE US
THE TROOPS
THE MISSION


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

raoul_duke said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> > blindboo said:
> ...



you clowns are creating a series of events that have nothing to do with our mission
desperation? This goes beyond desperation

saddam?
Dead
weapons?
Gone
republic?
Working
war?
Over

what else was there suppose to be?


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
> They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
> If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?


You fundamentally don't understand the role of the military in this country.  It is not the troops job to decide if they are deployed or what the mission is.  That is the job of the legislative and executive branches.  When the troops go, it is their job to kick ass and accomplish the mission.  They have done that admirably given the parameters they had and the challenges they faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and ever other conflict they engaged in.  I support them doing that, admire what they did, and thank them for what they accomplished in my behalf.   If you think that's not supporting them then fuck you all day long and twice on Sundays.

I want to change the mission.  I want to leave conflicts that aren't ours.  But while they are there, I do not want to tie their hands.  I certainly don't want to tear them down to the direct benefit of the enemy they are fighting as you do.   You are what's wrong, providing aid and comfort to the enemy so you can get more welfare from the government and get someone else to pay for your charity.  I want a different way regardless of who's in the White House.  You just want a Democrat in the White House.  As I said, fundamentally different.


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Then you tore them down by assuring the enemy they weren't supported at home.  That you did that showed your not wanting them in the first place had nothing to do with them.  As did your suddenly being OK with it all when you finally got the steering wheel back.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



There is no way any person can state the president is a liar, the troops that went there by choice should not be there is supporting anything but the terrorist You read those threads this guy and a couple of others have wrote about events that have nothing to do with our mission in Iraq and what the troops were doing
the terrorist could not do a better job. I am ashamed I allowed my self to be sucked in that far to there fantasy woorld


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



I supported Reagan when he went into Lebanon.  Over time I came to realize what a mistake getting into all those conflicts is.  There is everything right with learning as you go along.  Well done.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
> ...



fuck you?
we are done in Iraq
you have left the reservation also, even if I did not work 60+ hours a week and have for 35 years, its none of our fucking business if I was on welfare 
man the truth hurts to the bone
those kids who by choice joined the US marines after 3/2002 knew where they were headed
You tell me they did not know that? what your saying is those kids are not smart enough to realize that if you joined after 3-2003, Iraq maybe your new home
Are you kidding me? and then attack my character?
Dude if you do not like the truth, you might want to re evaluate the way you see these things, dont blame me for the way you feel

Those kids joined knowing whee it was headed
thats


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


I bolded the salient points for you on the discussion.  As for the welfare, I was arguing with multiple people and if I mixed you up I apologize for that.  I'll try to pay closer attention to what you personally argued.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Look The whole thing with the kids and the wars is very personal to every-one as it should be
My issue is with how we judge a 18 year old kid as though he cannot think for his or her self as it pertains to the events in Iraq or any where else.
Syria? now there is an example of the troops (pilots) doing what there told
Vietnam? basically the same

But in Iraq no matter how bad it hurts those who are against it. those kids knew
There was no surprises
the commitment to obtain victory was never in doubt
All I have ever said is that same kid hears any-one saying we have no business in Iraq, Bush lied, radical Islam is taking over, on and on and at the end say, "but we still support you, the troop that by choice went over there to fight"


----------



## idb (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



What?
I haven't seen any post on this thread condemning the troops.
Feel free to put me straight though.


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...





idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I have seen many that cannot be read any other way
An 18 year old kid joins the marines in 2006 do you think for one minute he thinks about the Iraq war the same you do?
and then he is told about this message board ans comes on here and reads the stuff some of you put on here while at the same time you claim to support this same guy?
Okay


----------



## idb (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Did that 18 year-old kid start the war?


----------



## JRK (Sep 22, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Nope
he finished it
that's why he joined 

and as far who started it
OBL and Saddam took care of that
Both god forgive me got what they deserved


----------



## idb (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Then, the war isn't his fault.


----------



## kaz (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you either READ my post or stop arguing it?  I already bolded it.  I'll make it red for you and enlarge it.  You keep arguing a point with me which is irrelevant to my point.  My brother and cousin were in Gulf War I.  I'm the only male in my generation in either side of the family with no military experience.  None of them get into the military for politics.  They go to serve their country, which they love.  Do they have opinions on politics?  Yep.  Is that why they are in the military?  Why they go when they are deployed?  How they make a decision if they will do as they are told or not?  Nope.  Would they join or leave the military based on the party?  Nope.  It's about their country.  Period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > All of this means nothing.
> ...



I support the troops coming home because the bushies lost Afghanistan in 2003, the Obamies could not turn the tide around, and most Americans want our boys and girls home.  My position is an American best position.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Many of the troops don't support it; read on other boards.  End of your silly argument there.  Many among us who served in southeast Asia did not support the war; read it on the boards.  End of your silly argument there.

The war is over, and we have lost.  Iraq and Iran, our deadly ally, draw closer every day and there is nothing we can do about it.

Thanks, stupid progressive right-wing neo-cons.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you do, you also think an Authorization to Use Force is a Declaration of War.
> ...



Learn something every day.  You are right 50% of the time instead of wrong all the time.  No AoF is not a DoW.


----------



## JRK (Sep 23, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Party?
what does any of this have to do with party?
who said anything about joining the service for politics?

Those kids after 3-2003 especially in the marines, rangers, etc.. knew where they where going
Here is the simple difference in the way a lib thinks and the way a conservative thinks

Your claim is a kid joins out of a passion to serve and the chance of serving in Iraq has nothing to do with it
in realville
Serving from 2001 till today has everything to do with Iraq and afgahn. Its what serving revolves around, Iraq is over, but from 03-recently it was mostly about that
When you went into that recruiters office you think the subject of Iraq did not come up?
you think a recruiter would have signed up a young man or woman if they said " I am totally against the war in Iraq. but I want to be a marine" 
come on


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK I think this is a great website for you to go to, Iraq veterans and other veterans heroically speaking out against the War in Iraq and our other wars.

Why We Are against the Wars | Iraq Veterans Against the War

I provided you the link that gives their reasons why they are against the war.

http://ivaw.org/contact-us

Now here's the contact page, you keep telling those of us who are anti-war to say it to a marine, well here's your chance to prove you aren't a hypocrite.  You can call, fax or email these veterans and tell them that since they're against the wars than they also hate america and hate the troops, like you've been saying on this thread about everyone who's anti-war.

After you've contacted them, please tell the board what you said and how your discussion went.

Thank you


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK I think this is a great website for you to go to, Iraq veterans and other veterans heroically speaking out against the War in Iraq and our other wars.

Why We Are against the Wars | Iraq Veterans Against the War

I provided you the link that gives their reasons why they are against the war.

Contact | Iraq Veterans Against the War

Now here's the contact page, you keep telling those of us who are anti-war to say it to a marine, well here's your chance to prove you aren't a hypocrite.  You can call, fax or email these veterans and tell them that since they're against the wars than they also hate america and hate the troops, like you've been saying on this thread about everyone who's anti-war.

After you've contacted them, please tell the board what you said and how your discussion went.

Thank you


----------



## JRK (Sep 23, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK I think this is a great website for you to go to, Iraq veterans and other veterans heroically speaking out against the War in Iraq and our other wars.
> 
> Why We Are against the Wars | Iraq Veterans Against the War
> 
> ...



What I did and when I have done it is none of your business
call?
fax?
I just talked to a marine this morning about it
I dont need a web site to discuss something with people who have the same agenda you do for what ever reason
out of the 100s of thousands of people who have served I am sure there are some who think the same you do
50?
500?
The difference with you and I is I challenged you, I all have all ready been talking to seals and marines about this 
Men and women with no agenda, that do not work for the DMC

You libs kill me with your spin
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Joining IVAW
*Iraq Veterans Against the War is open to Active Duty, National Guard and Reservists who have served since 09/11/2001.*
NATIONAL GUARD?
Yes they served and some gave it all
but you gave the impression this was all service, never mind
look its not the same and you know it


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK I think this is a great website for you to go to, Iraq veterans and other veterans heroically speaking out against the War in Iraq and our other wars.
> ...



Thanks for proving you're a hypocrite.

I'm shocked you'll only talk to people who agree with you.......................

You've been idiotically claiming that you have to support the wars to support troops, and you have to support our wars to love america.

You want me to talk to a marine who's pro-Iraq War and give you my testimony, but you won't talk to marines who are anti-Iraq War and tell them how they're anti-soldier and anti-america.

You're a coward and a hypocrite.


----------



## JRK (Sep 23, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock go away
your a child
How do you think I found out the web site is national guard members you idiot
you have taken this personal and trying to make it that way
the facts will not change
the information remains the same


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You're the one who started with petty insults.

It's not just national guard members genius, it's members of all branches of the military.

Members | Iraq Veterans Against the War

Here's the members, Army/Navy/Marine/Air Force, people who joined while the war was going on and are against it.

Why don't you email them all individually and tell them they hate america and hate soldiers, or will you admit that you can be against a President's foreign policy decisions and still support soldiers?


----------



## JRK (Sep 23, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Try and find a thread were I insulted you
all I have been doing is providing links Drock and my opinion as it goes to the troops

I must be wrong
the 500,000 kids that joined the marines after 2004 hated bush and were dead against the war
you happy now?
I mean really does that not make so much sense?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'll ask one more time and please answer this honestly;

If someone doesn't support the Iraq war are they anti-soldier and anti-america?


----------



## JRK (Sep 23, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock
I am thru with this
Every-one has made there minds up and in the end the kids who served in Iraq are the ones got hurt
I thought a little dose of the truth wouldn't hurt

I was wrong


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 23, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



Jake, I'll bet he had to check his tap to be sure.

I wonder if he still thinks members of Congress give orders to the troops?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 23, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Nic_Driver, Uncensored is fairly ignorant on American history, its themes, political and historical definitions, and so forth.  He is perfect for the Hard Right.


----------



## idb (Sep 23, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So...it was *all* about the troops that served in Iraq?
That's what the whole discussion is about as far as you're concerned?
Not the implications of the war to the two countries involved - politically, economically, socially?
We must support the war uncritically because a lot of soldiers went over there and a whole heap got hurt?

To make it worse, you twist your own logic (as confused as it is) by claiming that any servicemen that are against the war somehow aren't real vets but if they support the war they're true servicemen.

Further, you haven't got the balls to take your own challenge by being prepared to argue with any of those veterans that are against the whole sorry mess.

You also dismiss out of hand any link that disagrees with your own preconception.

One of the things I like about this site is that I've learnt a lot from having to research responses to other posters, I've even had my position changed from time to time.

Try to be a bit more open-minded and you might be surprised what happens...just because someone says it on tv doesn't make it true and just because someone has a different political leaning to you doesn't make all of their opinions wrong.

You know, despite what you apparently think, you might even find that there are plenty of 'Liberals' that approved of the war and conversely plenty of 'Conservatives' that disagree with it.


----------



## FactFinder (Sep 23, 2011)

*Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure? *

The troops were valiant but they had no choice. Sending them there was wrong *PERIOD*


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*Yes, you were wrong, it is not the truth.*


----------



## kaz (Sep 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



And he joined because his country was at war, not because he agreed with your politics


----------



## kaz (Sep 24, 2011)

JRK said:


> who said anything about joining the service for politics?


You said that to not support the mission (which is a political objective) is to not support the troops and you keep arguing that the ones who joined since knew what the political objective was.  I'm saying they joined for their country.  Not for your middle east political objectives.  It's not that hard.



JRK said:


> Those kids after 3-2003 especially in the marines, rangers, etc.. knew where they where going



Got it, you don't get it.  I give up.  OK, they joined to get Hussein, not for their country.  You win, happy?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 24, 2011)

Our troops joined because our country was at war.

That patriotism does not justify Bush's terrible mistakes.


----------



## JRK (Sep 24, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



 went to this web site in which these national garud troops were against the war, what do you think they need donations for?
re search?
you claim I do not have the balls to argue?
what am I suppose to be arguing?
there was cliams there was no weapons
why argue that? its not true
there are calims I have said you do not support the war you can still support the troops
makes no sense to me, after 2003 anyone who joined the marines knew they wouls probably end up in Iraq
kind of makes sense they support what we DID there also
any way thats your business, but I dis agree
thats my right


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 24, 2011)

Jroc write "makes no sense to me, "  That is the problem, Jroc: you can't understand what you are discussing.


----------



## JRK (Sep 24, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > who said anything about joining the service for politics?
> ...



Get what? that war sux?
you got that right
that killing sux?
could not agree  more
after 9-11 what do you think Bush was suppose to do with a man who had killedd 500,000 to 1 million of his own people?  that had lied over and over about the weapons he had? and after being told in front of congress days after 9-11 that he had no more chances?

This was a pure political hack job by the left to re gain power and it worked 
look were it got us
we won the war and no-one even knows it
we will be out of Iraq it looks like 100% in 2012
and you libs made so much about this task that was not true people do not know what to say to the kids who give it all to get it there

You claim you can support the troops and yet not the war
and yet what in gods name do you think those kids were doing there?
BY CHOICE?


----------



## kaz (Sep 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Our troops joined because our country was at war.
> 
> That patriotism does not justify Bush's terrible mistakes.



Agreed.  Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.


----------



## kaz (Sep 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> and you libs made so much about this task that was not true people do not know what to say to the kids who give it all to get it there
> 
> You claim you can support the troops and yet not the war
> and yet what in gods name do you think those kids were doing there?
> BY CHOICE?



Sure, I'm a liberal.  You've obviously at this point read enough of my posts to know that is just a flat out retarded statement.


----------



## JRK (Sep 25, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Our troops joined because our country was at war.
> ...



Not everyone sees this as a mistake
ask your self why has there been no polls done on this sense the agreement beetween the US and the Iraqi govt on ending our part in that war in 2012?


----------



## JRK (Sep 25, 2011)

Iraq

I found this link
it is strange that there was a 80% thought that we were not done
that has cjanged and none of these polls reflect that


----------



## idb (Sep 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> Iraq
> 
> I found this link
> it is strange that there was a 80% thought that we were not done
> that has cjanged and none of these polls reflect that



Do you think these polls show that the majority of Americans agree with your opinions?


----------



## JRK (Sep 25, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq
> ...



I doubt it
I think now that its over
the situation that is in Iraq today compared to where it was, who knows

Its never been about me anyway
Its allways beeen about the truth and those who chose to be there when they did not have to be


----------



## kaz (Sep 25, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My views aren't based on poll results, so I don't have to ask myself anything.  Get government out of the energy business both for securing oil overseas and restricting domestic exploration, production and refinement.  Let a free market work on it and set a market price.  And pull our troops out of the middle east completely.  Eventually we should only have troops permanently in US territory.  

The Republicans want to make every terrorist our enemy and hunt them down and kill them fighting the rest of the world to do it.  The Democrats want us to sit and only defend ourselves only as the international liberal community is comfortable with.  As long as we are there, I want to follow the Republican path.  Hunt them down and kill them.  But I am going to continue to ask why we are actually there when there is a better way.  Free markets, what Republicans claim to support, and continually fail to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 25, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Our troops joined because our country was at war.
> ...



He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan.  Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected.  We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position.  He will never change, but he is fun to read.


----------



## JRK (Sep 26, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The GOP has had no power sense Jan 2007, how could they fail to support anything?

The day people stop flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, we will get out of the removing of terror and terror supporting groups from the ME


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 26, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



*"went to this web site in which these national garud troops were against the war,"*

The first time you said this you were wrong and I provided proof by specifically giving you a link to the members list.

Now that you're saying it a second time, having already been given proof of the exact opposite of what you said the first time, proves you're just flat out lying.

Desperation, sorry JRK, you'll never convince the majority of americans that our warmongering in Iraq is as awesome as you think it is.


----------



## JRK (Sep 26, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



whats not the truth
calling a man a liar is childish and in person can be un healthy unless u can back  it up
Me, I see the child side of it
so, what have I said that is not the truth


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2011)

Calling you a liar, JRK, when you repeatedly lie is not childish.  It is an adult telling a childish poster that no one is buying your crap.  Get over yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Libya is not an example of neo-con imperialism.  Not all intervention is neo-conservatism of the right wing at work, and Libya was not an example of neo-cons fast on the draw.

What I did like about the intervention (and I wish Bush had done this in Afghanistan) was the adroit mixture of soft and hard power there, and certainly in the pushing our allies out front.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Libya is just a miniature version of Iraq.  We're supporting monsters against monsters, the anti-Qaddafi commanders even openly admit their fighters have Al-Qaeda ties.  Also it's not hard to find plenty of websites alleging all the human rights violations of the ppl we're supporting (burning ppl alive, dragging ppl behind cars, all kinds of other torture).

Maybe Iraq isn't the best comparison, the better comparison for the current situation in Libya is when we supported a certain bearded fella in Afghanistan from 1979-1985.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Status of Forces agreement you're referring to was made in December of 2008.

I found 12  polls SINCE THEN asking if the Iraq war was worth it, or whether it was right or wrong, or whether we achieved our goals.

UNANIMOUSLY, the polls said it was NOT worth it, WRONG, and we did NOT achieve our goals.

Iraq

So stop trolling.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



who is trolling?
do you understand the concept of ignore
the only trolls and the only spammers are the ones who do not like the threads about the war showing how many myths there are
go away and you will not be missed


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



*In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..*


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do what?
Look did you forget this vote in 1998?

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Things are so peaceful in Iraq. How many a week are dying there right now in continued civil warfare? You call this winning? 

JRK, no matter how you lie about it. all know we went in on the basis of lies. And it is worse, overall, now, for the Iraqi people than before we went in. Hussein got his just deserts, but we killed more Iraqis and created more havoc there than he ever did.

Iraq was and is a neo-con fuck up.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, not in any sense.  

It was his idea of neo-con adventurous warmongering.  

Always an odd coincidence that we're always "saving" people in oil rich nations..........................


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



*What coincidence?

How would it have looked if we had not supported the Brits on this one?*


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



How would it look if we didn't attack Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations?  China? North Korea? Uganda? Rwanda? South Africa?

Oh wait, half those countries are our pals.

The gov't in Libya isn't the constitutional job of the US gov't if they aren't attacking us, and they aren't and never could have.  Paying for warmongering in Libya isn't the job the of U.S. taxpayer.


----------



## Photonic (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Well, Libya has a lot of oil, thus it's in national Interest to make sure that oil gets sold to us.  


Yea, they were no threat to us by far. Look what happened to them in just the first 2 or 3 days. Their Air Force and radar capability was crushed overnight.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Things are so peaceful in Iraq. How many a week are dying there right now in continued civil warfare? You call this winning?
> 
> JRK, no matter how you lie about it. all know we went in on the basis of lies. And it is worse, overall, now, for the Iraqi people than before we went in. Hussein got his just deserts, but we killed more Iraqis and created more havoc there than he ever did.
> 
> Iraq was and is a neo-con fuck up.



How many in US are being murdered this week? we average 41 a day
What lies?
every persona who has called me a liar has yet to back it, I guess maybe your all own the same agenda
all of you be added to my ignore list

What Iraq was is your opinion
The Iraqis were killed mostly bu Saddam prior to and Al Qaeda After we invaded

Al-Qaeda is Sunni, and often attacked the Iraqi Shia majority in an attempt to incite sectarian violence and greater chaos in the country.[114] Al-Zarqawi purportedly declared an all-out war on Shiites[115] while claiming responsibility for Shiite mosque bombings.[116] The same month, a statement claiming to be by AQI rejected as "fake" a letter allegedly written by al-Zawahiri, in which he appears to question the insurgents' tactic of indiscriminately attacking Shiites in Iraq.[117] In a December 2007 video, al-Zawahiri defended the Islamic State in Iraq, but distanced himself from the attacks against civilians committed by "hypocrites and traitors existing among the ranks".[118]
*U.S. and Iraqi officials accused AQI of trying to slide Iraq into a full-scale civil war between Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Sunni Arabs, with an orchestrated campaign of civilian massacres *and a number of provocative attacks against high-profile religious targets.[119] With attacks such as the 2003 Imam Ali Mosque bombing, the 2004 Day of Ashura and Karbala and Najaf bombings, the 2006 first al-Askari Mosque bombing in Samarra, the deadly single-day series of bombings in which at least 215 people were killed in Baghdad's Shiite district of Sadr City, and the second al-Askari bombing in 2007, they provoked Shiite militias to unleash a wave of retaliatory attacks, resulting in death squad-style killings and spiraling further sectarian violence which escalated in 2006 and brought Iraq to the brink of violent anarchy in 2007.[120] In 2008, sectarian bombings blamed on al-Qaeda killed at least 42 people at the Imam Husayn Shrine in Karbala in March, and at least 51 people at a bus stop in Baghdad in June.
Why would we be killing Iraqis?
*
For gods sake would you liberals do your DD*
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Photonic said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Same as Iraq
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

raq has not provided an adequate declaration of its prior production of nerve agent VX. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 Inspectors have found a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 6,500 missing chemical rockets remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 Iraq has not provided evidence to substantiate its claim that it destroyed 8,500 liters of anthrax [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 650kg of bacterial growth media remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 Iraq has been developing Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah missiles with a range beyond the 150km limit. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 380 rocket engines were smuggled into Iraq the previous month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
 Iraq had provided the names of only 400 of the estimated 3,500 Iraqi scientists. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] Iraqi scientists are refusing private interviews with UN inspectors. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] 
ElBaradei's report to the UN - 

Hans Blix

I have been accused of spamming
this is in response to the non stop statements that Bush is  liar, yet these comments are really the same he was saying
who was lying?
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]





> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. [George Bush, March 17, 2003]


Tell me you see the difference between those two comments.

Nah, I doubt you'll see it. I'll help you.

Blix was saying the chemical agents weren't accounted for. He said that about a lot of stuff. He never claimed Saddam had them, he just claimed they were unaccounted for. Bush, though, claimed Saddam HAD them in 2003. AND because Saddam HAD them, we must invade and invade now.

Big difference there bub.


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 27, 2011)

Another JRK Iraq war thread? Jesus Christ. Enough already. Are you trying to get out of paying a losing bet or something?

Look, it doesn't matter how much you cry about the war not being a failure or Bush not lying. The fact of the matter is, Iraq had no WMDs, no connection to AQ, and was not a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. We never should have been there. This will be Bush's legacy. Deal with it and move on.


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 27, 2011)

I'm beginning to think that JRK is actually GW Bush.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 27, 2011)

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 27, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



*You avoided my question.*


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Sep 27, 2011)

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.

Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War.



Having them and using them in the 1980s is not proof that he had them and was going to use them in 2003.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> 
> Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.



And you still don't get it.  No shock there.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
> ...



Iraq had very little capability to even defend itself from it's neighbors let alone attack America. There was absolutely no reason to invade, conquer, kill and subjugate the people of Iraq. We did exactly to Iraq..what we were afraid of Al Qaeda doing to us.

And there's no shame from the people that cheered this on.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 27, 2011)

NoNukes said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



No I answered it.

It would look the exact same as us not invading those other countries I listed, completely meaningless, nobody was calling for war in Libya before it happened out of nowhere.


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



what makes you think Bush wasn't manipulated by Cheney, rumsfeld, Perle, etc?


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 27, 2011)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
> 
> Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"



It's a good thing FDR had competent advisers around him who didn't rely on, and push unreliable and unproven evidence before sending American men and women off to die. Bush's legacy - unprovoked war, missed Bin Laden, tax cuts for the rich and the worst job creation numbers in history.


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

JosefK said:


> bitterlyclingin said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
> ...


unreliable and unproven evidence?  an entire fleet was destroyed.  Gee that was tough to prove.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 27, 2011)

elvis said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



What makes you think he was?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
> ...



And one day you will find the link that explains how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him.

Until then you have nothing but empty words accusing him of being a lair......bub


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Wow. It was so recently and yet you have already forgotten how pissed France was at us. "Freedom Fries" ring a bell?


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> 
> Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.



It asks a simple question
has nothing to do with justification

The lib only knows to spin
It is a simple question


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



lol...they werent pissed at us.
Due to pressure from the people, they opted to withdraw their support for the war....they didnt care about leaving Iraq unstable.

But you didnt answer my question.....

Please explain how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him


----------



## G.T. (Sep 27, 2011)




----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
> ...



Un accounted for and possess and conceal?
sound allot like to me
If you conceal something would you then be in account for the same?
I dont know, I know this
I have never heard any-one form the left talk about this day


----------



## J.E.D (Sep 27, 2011)

elvis said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > bitterlyclingin said:
> ...



Perhaps you're referring to Pearl Harbor? I'm referring to the unreliable and false evidence that lead to the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Countries were pissed at us, even if you refuse to admit it.

As for the intel, I never said Bush doctored anything. Personally, I don't think he had to. The Blix quotes above are a perfect example. Blix was reporting that the WMDs from the 80s and early 90s were unaccounted for. Bush read that and believed it meant the WMDs were being hidden in Iraq, even though there was no proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq.

It wasn't about doctoring anything but misreading the obvious.


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

JosefK said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



only that there was no way to receive bad intelligence that it was Japan who had attacked us and in effect a threat to us.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 27, 2011)

good job, mods.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> 
> Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.



Actually, I see him justifying the actions of a President...you know...something people do day in and day out on this board.

And to be honest, I beleived there were WMD's as well in Iraq....and if not, then I am confident Hussein did everything he could to make us think there were.

I am glad there werent, but if there were, then I would have been glad we went there.

However, we miscalculated the resistance...we never expected ANY human being who was willing to use schools as sheilds.

So yes, we had the wrong strategy.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I think they got pissed at us about this
Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud
France, Russia, and Saddam
No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list.10 The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?
> 
> NOT hidden?
> 
> Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.



Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?
> ...



Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?
> ...



lets comapre apples to apples......asswipe (your word, not mine)

If I was released 10 years ago under a court order that said the cops had the right to inspect my house whenever they wanted to....and ten years later, I stopped allowing them access to my basement where they originally found illegal drugs...then I would likely be arrested and jailed as the courts would assume I had something to hide.

And then if they said we will let you go, all you need to do is prove to us that you are hiding nothing in your basement...and I gave them access to my basement but told them they can now not look in my attic......I woulkd likely be arrested and jailed again.

Curious....why in your analogy, asswipe (your word), did you NOT mention the treaty and the violation of the treaty.

Are you insecure with your posiitoion on the topic?


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> ...



It messes them up. they thought those lies would go on for ever
Look I am just the start
we won
we are leaving Iraq as this thread is wrote
those kids and there leaders did it
we fought AL Qaeda, killed 1000s of them
and the cost?
we had bases in Saudi and Kuwait that was closed
we had billions upon billions the UN was getting from us to baby sit Iraq (I cannot find an accurate #), and this
Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 27, 2011)

We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Sallow said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Cheer?
I dont see anyone cheering this
another liberal myth to the pile of myths
its about correcting history as we leave there, was it 4 years ago it was "Quagmire"
and that all was lost?

Who do you think we were fighting in Iraq? Iraqis?
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leadership: Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq
Al Qaeda in Iraq -- A profile of jihadist organization Al Qaeda in Iraq

try and do some DD on these serious issues


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



I mean no dis respect but that is pure denial what you are saying

It was not GWB place in life to care for those weapons
It was not the UN's
It was Saddam and he failed, he lied, he hid, he buried, who know what he did
He was suppose to destroy with verifiable evidence
Now 2-300 weapons out of 6,500, you may say ok

But 6500?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the truth?
even Blix commented that the Iraqi govt had not grasped the seriousness of there role in this fiasco


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



He's exactly correct.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 27, 2011)

Yup. That's how I remember it.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Yup. That's how I remember it.



Its off a bit then.  As the regime didnt allow open inspections. There were constant denials and delays.

Even Mr Blitz stated Iraq was not in compliance.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I know I am
IT WAS SADDAMS PLACE IN LIFE TO PROVE THOSE WEAPONS WERE DESTROYED BY UN MANDATE
Did Resolution 1441 mean the coalition were supposed to find the WMD in Iraq?

*No the coalition were not supposed to find the WMD*, the media may try to portray it that way, but not what is required by resolution 1441. T*he inspectors were there to view the evidence of them having been destroyed not to find them. *
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441 in full
What was required by resolution 1441?

*Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so.* Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441

The truth lives and breaths
as i said, some of you will not ever been taken serious again

Facts about the Iraq War


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



id the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?

Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow. 
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain

The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again. 
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



did japan have the right to take action against the United States?  they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor.  "take away their ability to make war."


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.

*The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...*

I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?


----------



## 8537 (Sep 27, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> ...


Oh, I get it just fine.  Water carriers and boot lickers will never admit that we wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

You and JRK, for instance.  Perfect examples of what the rightwing echo chamber.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

elvis said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

Interesting hoiw all of you seemed to have forgotten.

I blame the media.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Facts about the Iraq War

This web site jarhead is the best I have found for the truth
just found it today


----------



## 8537 (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?
> ...


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



lives were not wasted. They were lost.
As for the money......what if there were WMD's? Would iut have been a waste of money?


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > did japan have the right to take action against the United States?  they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor.  "take away their ability to make war."
> ...



No. That is not what Congress voted for.

You should read the resolution. Specifically Section 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It was still a preventive war and I haven't forgotten anything.   One could also blame the media for the drum beating that led up to the war.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

8537 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



Boot lickers?
Boot lickers?
what exactly is it that you do not understand about fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for the reasons as put forth in Resolution 1441?
you think that fighting these people who want to kill us would be free?
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what do you think we were doing over there?
why do you think we did anything wrong?
Water carriers?


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed 
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and 
appropriate in order 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.*

this will do

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq&#8217;s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441

What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441* to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so.* Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq&#8217;s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441

*Now you understand why I go back to the Blix speech of 1-27-2003*

Facts about the Iraq War


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Wait, did you just say we invaded them because they didn't show sufficient proof of destroying their WMDs?


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 27, 2011)

I've already posted in one of these war threads that I believe that we achieved goals after invading that I think were praise-worthy and noble.

1. Dictator deposed
2. Democratic constitution drafted with diverse input from citizens
3. Military and Police gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections held
5. Infrastructure rebuilt (only in part, but that's noteworthy)

One of my legal mentors is a soldier-lawyer who helped draft the Iraqi constitution and train the Iraqi police force. One war story he loves to tell (I think to remind himself how lucky he is to be alive) involves his explanation to the local equivalent of a sheriff how you can't just put someone in jail for revenge. As he was leaving the next day, his transport barely made it over a bridge that "popped". Later he was told that relatives of the sheriff did that just to let him know they didn't like what they'd been taught. 

Now I don't see that story as proof for either side of any partisan points. Simply that the work our servicemen and women is dangerous, slow, and unfair.

That being said, inspectors were in Iraq prior to the war...they just weren't allowed full access. The tug of war was whether diplomatic efforts could, given more time, get us access to those places. I surely do remember that the threat was termed immanent based on the believed forward push in delivery methods.

I must profess, this isn't my area of expertise.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



I did not say nothing
you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion
Saddam had a mandate, he ignored it
Look dude, I am sorry you have been lied to
this is as black and white as it gets and none of it is mine
why would you question the obvious is beyond me


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Neither, just relating how I observed it at the time...


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I've already posted in one of these war threads that I believe that we achieved goals after invading that I think were praise-worthy and noble.
> 
> 1. Dictator deposed
> 2. Democratic constitution drafted with diverse input from citizens
> ...



The effort I put forth in these threads about this war is for those who have sacrificed it all, they need the truth 
This has never been about me


----------



## elvis (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yeah.  we've been lied to 

It has nothing to do with the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of a group of people who had wanted to conquer Iraq for years.


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> you provided a link to the resolution
> I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion



Right. And you pointed to the section about Saddam destroying WMDs and "providing proof". How much proof did Saddam need to provide to convince you and Bush that he did not have something?

Wow, you support the invasion because Saddam didn't give you enough proof of something. Unreal.


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2011)

It's only opinion I know, but this guy agreed with me in June 2002;


> The latest threat from the Bush administration, articulated by the President himself, is that by Sunday, December 8, Saddam must produce 'credible' proof that he has no weapons of mass destruction or face likely US attack. With that, Saddam Hussein faces probably the toughest challenge of his long and bloody career: How to prove that he has not done something. The only thing he has going for him may be the conventional wisdom that proving a negative is impossible. But the choice confronting Saddam is tough, because he faces a US President who chooses to put aside the norms of American justice and apply the Code Napoleon.


Saddam's Dilemma - How To Prove A Negative


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > you provided a link to the resolution
> ...



Proof
were not talking about, well
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account f*or 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, *[/U*]adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".*
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. *There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.*
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced *8,500 litres of anthrax a*nd unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq *had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. *Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
I really am to the point with you guys that you cannot be taken seriously any more


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

For those who think using someones opinion to counter the facts
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
that stuff was based on Iraqi documents
If Saddam did not have it, and he lied about having it
whats the difference?


----------



## DontBeStupid (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



"Strong indications", "failed to account", "no convincing evidence", "not fully accounted for"

And these were reasons enough for you.

That's sad.


----------



## idb (Sep 27, 2011)

DontBeStupid said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



Also, the US acted on a *UN* resolution without UN authorisation.
They tried to get the UN to authorise action but they wouldn't, so the WH took unilateral action while still using the UN as justification.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 27, 2011)

Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.

We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
That were verified to be in his possession.
Then suddenly disappear.
In a way he can't account for.

Furthermore, it wasn't just the U.S.....it was a group of nations who all decided that getting proof of a negative wasn't just possible, but required.

And the guy had notice of what was required.

Think about that. If a judge in your local city had you in front of the bench and says "Look son, I don't want you hangin' around those druggies" are you going to comply? (This is usually always a condition of probation, btw)   But how will you prove it? It's a negative. Well you sure as don't tell the people checking that they can't come into your house!!

He had them. Then he didn't have them. He was told to keep track. Then he actively fought against the people coming in.

What more do you need?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 27, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk



> He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."



So the Bush White House was wrong on this too.

Interesting that the UN inspectors claim Saddam was cooperating before Bush invaded.  Bush forced the inspectors out of Iraq and didn't let them finish their UN mandate and then tried to use the UN to justify invasion.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
> 
> We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
> That were verified to be in his possession.
> ...




This group for 1000s of thread and for reasons I do not understand have tried so hard to make these events something there not
From the mans own link, the very reason we invaded and why it was legal came running out
I am very impressed with your honesty, that comes as no easy thing from me in this day and time

What more do you need?


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 27, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Wow.


----------



## JRK (Sep 27, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



its confusing to me why its got to this level of denial


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 27, 2011)

JRK said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...



I'm confused about the denial too.  

Why did Bush lie about the effectiveness of the inspections and Saddam's cooperation with these inspectors?

What do you think, why would he lie?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
> 
> We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
> That were verified to be in his possession.
> ...



So is it fair to assume you would support wars against Pakistan/North Korea/Iran/China?


(I know Iran doesn't have WMD's yet, but they're on that path)


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
> 
> We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
> That were verified to be in his possession.
> ...



e original list released in March 2003 included 46 members.[3] I*n April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.*

was it said we did this uni laterally?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 28, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yes they did.  I remember thinking at the time, they are asking Saddam to prove a negative that he can't possibly do, 

which meant they were putting him in a position where compliance on their terms was impossible,

thus making their desire for the war all but unstoppable.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It was Saddam's documents that stated he had this stuff
What do you mean impossible?

I buried 6000 munitions right here
the anthrax was destroyed here

This has baffled me from day one, The only person who lied was Saddam

Biological agents
Anthrax
&#8226;* Iraq declared 8,500 liters*, but UNSCOM estimates Iraq could have 25,000 liters.
VX Nerve Agent
&#8226;* Iraq admitted to having 4 tons of VX after Saddam Hussein&#8217;s late son-in-law defected and led inspectors to collect documents.*

&#8226; UNSCOM also has forensic evidence that Iraq produced and weaponized VX, but Iraq denies ever weaponizing the agent.

Boston.com / News / Rebuilding Iraq

I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

*The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs*. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs 

UNMOVIC AND IAEA IRAQ INSPECTION REPORTS JAN 2003

This is were the rubber meets the road
Congress stated to enforce
this info came from Saddam and you claim it was impossible to verify this stuff no longer existed?
Who better than the owner?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. *Then where did it go afterwards*. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
> 
> Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"



They were almost all destroyed after Iraq was thrown out of Kuwait!  The problem is that the UN couldn't verify that a very small % of them were actually destroyed.  The real question is how was Saddam able to obtain the technology and the pre-cusor chemicals to develop sarin in the first place.  (Look no further than uncle Ronnie)!

FDR was a liberal.  News of that war (a real one where the enemy had an army, air force and a navy) was censored from the public.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> bitterlyclingin said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. *Then where did it go afterwards*. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
> ...



bOO YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR OTHER THREAD. YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY AND RETRACT WHAT YOU SAID

And as far as the UN goes, it was not the UNS place to verify squat
What was required by resolution 1441?

*Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. *Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441
Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441
Facts about the Iraq War


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.




But, but we won the war.  We deposed the governement of a country that had been ravaged with war and sanctions for nearly 30 year.  The greatest Rah-Rah moment for the psudo-conned (liberal militatrist) since Grenada.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.
> ...



both of your opinions are just that
factless opinions

Boo you owe me an apology from you accusing me of claims I did not make, you went over the line bud
You can be anti American did the right thing in Iraq all you want, that's your business, but to lie about me to provide cover for your feelings with me is mine
fix it


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Lol he claims others are lying, all the while continuing to spout the lie that you have to view the War in Iraq fondly in order to not be anti-american.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> DontBeStupid said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



By recalling the previous resolutions SCR 1441 superceeded them.  Having no military trigger 1441's only recourse if Iraq failed to co-operate was for the SC to reconviene to discuss what to do next.  That is the only reason it passed the counsul anyway.  Bush breached that resolution by starting the invasion and not allowing to inspectors the time they needed to prove Iraq was in compliance.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



*Boo you have got something to fix
yuu made an accusation about me that is not true
FIX IT*


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

elvis said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > DontBeStupid said:
> ...



Didn't FDR empose a blockade or embargo on Japan?


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




 well another one goes on the ignore list
I will not discuss anything with people who have conducted there selves the way they have


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




No.  They voted to give the Preisdent the power to use force if Iraq was a threat or if Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and 
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- 
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and 
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

Were the UN weapons inspectors kicked out of Iraq?

Yes they were, many people try to say that they were not kicked out but left because the west were going to bomb Iraq. 
The truth is they were going to bomb Iraq because Saddam had stopped the inspections  31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction
with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM's activities inside
Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the
press, unanimously condemn Iraq's decision to cease all cooperation with
UNSCOM.
United Nations Chronology
Facts about the Iraq War


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



We don't want to read your lies, JRK, only the fact (the real fact) you are wrong on the subject and wrong for America.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

Well it seems everyone who disagrees with JRK on Iraq is on ignore now.


In other words, he'll just be talking to himself on his Iraq threads.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

Suspend Elections | Beverly Perdue | Audio | The Daily Caller
hell they have free elections in Iraq


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




I owe you absolutely nothing.

Are you saying we didn't win the war?

Are you saying Iraq had not been ravage by war of sanctions for nearly 30 years?

What are you saying?

If anything you owe all kinds of people on this thread an apology.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Boo Do you recall this?

It was not our issue that Al Qaeda attacked us 9-11-2001
were we suppose to ignore this?
Most all of the casualties and the expense in Iraq came from fighting Al Qaeda, not Iraqis

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Husseins efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladins public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladins Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.(Nor have they found evidence that this did not occur, any way this is from the 9-11 commission)
http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

Also
Page Not Found - The Washington Post
Al Qaeda Found Responsible For Iraq Bomb Attacks Killing 66 at Pat Dollard
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suicide attackers and car bombs hit cities across Iraq on Monday, killing at least 60 people in apparently coordinated assaults authorities blamed on al Qaeda affiliates intent on destabilizing the government.
Bombs, attacks hit Iraqi cities, at least 60 dead | Reuters

You've lost again. 

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.

Read more: Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found - seattlepi.com
__________________


No you stated right here that "I lost again" but if you would have read the post as it is I clearly had the "there was no evidence that Saddam" quote in my thread
Why did you lie about me? make a mis leading statement about my character?
and exactly who is it I owe an apology too bud?

The others I put on my ignore list were beyond extreme, that was the first time you attacked my character
why?
I dont give a shit your a flaming liberal, but at least be honest about it, who and what you believe in should not require those actions
Now I am sure your going right back on my ignore list
so good luck with who and what you are


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




Jrk

You are incorrect.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Did you stomp you feet and move your arms up and down while posting that little tantrum?


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




Whaaaaaaa.....you disgust me by calling me a flaming liberal.  I shall no longer deal with you.  Whaaaaaaaa......


Hahaha  just kidding.  You are a first class liar.  Please put me on ignore.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



You think treating your fellow american this way on shit you made up is funny?
man you have got allot to learn in life
Tantrum?
good luck bud, like I said before with who and what you are
let me give you some good advice
when you attack a mans character in a public forum with something that is a mis representation of that person, taken out of context, its no joking matter
I could care less, not every-one is like me Boo


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



JRK, you are wrong, son, and none of lying and crying changes it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



We did impose an embargo on Japan, why would that be the instance he chose to start his tantrum throwing today?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 28, 2011)

JRK will throw tantrums when his lack of integrity is called out.  Tough luck.  He is flatly integrity valueless.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Well it seems everyone who disagrees with JRK on Iraq is on ignore now.
> 
> 
> In other words, he'll just be talking to himself on his Iraq threads.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 28, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Because he doesn't know the history leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and therefore cannot put it into historical perspective.


----------



## JRK (Sep 28, 2011)

Wonder what kind of spin we get here
good reading

An overwhelming aspiration to normalcy. 
Perhaps the most widespread wish expressed to ICG 
was that Iraq finally turn the page of its Iranian and 
Kuwaiti wars and of its confrontation with the 
outside world. Many of the Iraqis interviewed by 
ICG shared the view of having been mere pawns 
who have paid for the follies of others. A typical 
sentiment was: 
What we want is simply a dose of stability. 
We have suffered enough due to our leaders 
mistakes. We want to become a normal 
country once again, a state that enjoys good 
relations with its neighbours and that is no 
longer an international pariah. (thank you US troops)
33
Increasingly nostalgic recollections of an earlier era 
of economic prosperity and modernisation reinforce 
feelings of collective humiliation and national 
disgrace. Before the war and the sanctions, our dinar 
was strong and our purchasing power was the envy 
of the Arab world. We want to return to the period of 
prosperity our parents lived through in the 1970s.
34

2. A reliance on the outside. For many Iraqis 
interviewed by ICG, returning to normalcy today 
requires yielding to a foreign power. Memories of the 
failed 1991 uprising and its bloody consequences 
remain vivid, and few appear ready to take up arms

look at this from back in the day, and anyone would question our success here?
A heavy and prolonged international  and, 
especially, U.S.  presence is both anticipated and 
desired as an insurance policy against civil strife and 
instability and as a guarantor of massive international 
aid. Expressing a view voiced by a number of Iraqis, 
a civil servant explained: 
If the Americans are committed to 
overthrowing the regime they also must be 
committed to rebuilding a country they directly 
contributed to destroy over the past twelve 
years as a result of their uncompromising 
attitude toward sanctions, disarmament and the 
various other pretexts they invoked. If Iraqs 
reconstruction does not become a priority, then 
it would be better to stick to the status quo. At 
least Saddam knows us well, and he knows 
how to manage the violent tendencies of our 
society. *The United States must guarantee law 
and order, and they must oversee Iraqs rapid 
reconstruction.*
38
 Still in Japan after 66
in and out in 8 years in Iraq

Central but as yet passive figures in the unfolding 
drama, the Iraqi people appear eager for some way, 
any way, to alter the status quo. ICGs limited survey 
suggests that many Iraqis are willing to embrace a 
U.S.-led war

http://wanews.org/docs/iraq street.pdf


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.



What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary?  When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.
> ...



Desperate?
If this is desperation then why do you not just ignore it and exactly what evidence to the contrary are we talking?

Did the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 
Resolution 1441 (2002) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 
Resolution 687 
BBC NEWS | Americas | Key points of resolution on Iraq

The only desperate people I see are the ones who called this unfortunate action a Quagmire and that all was lost


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.
> ...



*George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.*

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

*Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.*

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq. 



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination. 
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria, 
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also* evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation*. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Husseins efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;*it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladins public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladins Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.* In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
*Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined,* apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



From your very own cut and paste selection;

*None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Husseins efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle**Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74*

Apologize for what?  You still choosing to deny facts, even facts from your own sources?

There is something you need to do, apologize for labeling the Iraq veterans who are against the War in Iraq as anti-american and anti-soldier.  There is no worse insult you can provide to a soldier, however I'm certain you won't take back that statement.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



You have no idea how far over the line you are
I put on ignore to ignore you and you keep on attacking my good name

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam

Thats from your thread

Your attacking threads to start with Drock, 

do you understand what the word *no *means?
My response is from the 9-11 report stating there was more than no, read it Drock and stop saying things that are not true
Drock I have had enough of this
put an end to it now
Drock put an end to it now

You want to debate things with people on this message board, thats your business
you keep lying about me Drock is got to stop bud
NOW
I mean it


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war.  That's a disgusting and immoral lie.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I have asked you to stop miss quoting me, JRK
you Dr.Drock;4205298  have by your actions declined
9-29-2011
0923
edited 0934
9-29-2011


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Now you're lying about your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-146.html

JRK  
Registered User
Member #28394   Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,902 
Thanks: 244
Thanked 210 Times in 170 Posts 
Rep Power: 34 



Quote: Originally Posted by kaz  
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey  
All of this means nothing.

The war was a failure. Iran grows closer to Iraq every day, and our soldiers have died for nothing
We agree we are against the wars. Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run. I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel. Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.
To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
*If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops *

You said that.

and I've REPEATEDLY asked you to take that back, and you haven't.  So YOU are saying that Iraq vets, who are against the War in Iraq, don't support the troops.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I have asked Dr.Drock;4205298 to stop taking my words JRK out of context
this action proves he will not 
I have never said that Iraqi vets do not support the troops Dr.Drock;4205298
Your taking JRKs opinion and expanding beyond JRKs meaning, a definition that only JRK could know
I ask Dr.Drock;4205298 again to leave me alone
to stop taking my opinions out of context 
To stop adding comment and conjecture to events that may or may not have occurred and to clarify any thing that may confuse Dr.Drock;4205298 of comments JRK may have said to ask JRK directly

Only an idiot would make claim that your service of this great nation as a service person would also mean you did not support your fellow service men, no matter what the situation or your feeling on the war(s) we are engaged in at this time


again Dr.Drock;4205298 is taking liberties that are not his place in life to do with JRKs opinions, feelings, and in general who and what JRK is and add information to that- that is not true bor is it the feelings JRK has


Simply put I have thanked our troops numerous times for there service, no matter if they support the war or not 

Dr.Drock;4205298 I demand you stop harassing me
my name
my reputation
NOW

to stop taking any comments EVER I have made and adding context and beliefs to those that may or may nor have ever existed

Dr.Drock;4205298 I demand you to cease this at once
JRK has nothing further to say on this matter
JRK will monitor all verbiage directed at  JRK from Dr.Drock;4205298 from here until JRK is satisfied this attack on JRK and his character has stopped


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

*If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops *



You said that, you categorically said everyone who doesn't support a war, doesn't support the troops.  Quite obviously the word EVERYONE includes Iraqi vets who are against the War in Iraq.


So please stop blaming ME for your inability to get your message across.  


Simply saying "Sorry, I didn't mean that, or I worded that wrong" would clear it all up, but you won't say that.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."


May God Bless them
Also I want to add that we did the very things these men asked for 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...87DLDA&usg=AFQjCNFbs2StBV8bDeCXUqp-Dsj2NA5xdQ


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



It won't be long before JRK won't have anyone left to respond, he'll ignore the world.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



All of that has been debunked as nonsense repeatedly in one or more of your other threads.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Desperate?No, that's not the word I was looking for.  I believe it's called confirmation bias but I'm not a psychologist.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Let me guess - agents for the two met in the Czech Republic before 9.11.  Amiright?

Dick Cheney told me so.


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

That link to wanews is incorrect.  From a brief review, it appears the title of that website is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!news.

Rhymes with the noise a baby makes when you take his binky.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.
> ...



Osama hated Saddam but they were secretly in kahoots planning 9/11.  Obviously, that's how Osama treated ppl he hated and termed infidels.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> That link to wanews is incorrect.  From a brief review, it appears the title of that website is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!news.
> 
> Rhymes with the noise a baby makes when you take his binky.




http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2006-701.pdf
The Iraqi chemical weapons stockpile consisted of chemical warfare agents 
filled into munitions and bulk containers.  Iraq declared an overall production of 
some 3,850 tons of chemical agents during the past chemical weapons programme. 
Approximately 3,300 tons of mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and sarin or a 
sarin/cyclosarin mixture were weaponized into about 130,000 munitions, out of 
which over 101,000 munitions were used  during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi 
chemical arsenal, produced before 1991, included the following delivery systems: 
155-mm artillery projectiles, 122-mm rockets, missile warheads and a variety of 
aerial bombs. While most of the agents  weaponized were filled into aerial bombs, 
the 122-mm rockets and 155-mm artillery projectiles were the most numerous 
munitions of the Iraqi chemical weapons arsenal. Iraq declared and inspectors 
confirmed that the 155-mm projectiles had been filled with mustard gas, while the 
122-mm rockets were weaponized with sarin or a sarin/cyclosarin mixture. Iraq also 
declared that it had successfully developed and tested a limited number of binary 
artillery systems, including 155-mm and 152-mm shells for sarin but did not enter 
into serial production of such systems. 
2. According to Iraq, during the Iran-Iraq war, munitions were filled with 
chemical agents days or weeks before their intended use and, after temporary 
storage at the Muthanna State Establishment, the primary Iraqi chemical weapons 
facility, they were delivered directly to designated military units. The chemical 
munitions were dispersed to dozens of locations throughout the territory of Iraq, 
where they could have been mixed with conventional munitions, abandoned, buried, 
lost or damaged. Iraq declared that the chemical munitions produced after the IranIraq war (in 1990 and January 1991) had been distributed to 17 locations, including 
airbases and ammunition depots, throughout the country. Normally, artillery shells, 
aerial bombs and warheads filled with chemical agents were stored without their 
associated explosives. The explosive burster charge and fuse were inserted prior to 
use. The 122-mm rockets filled with nerve agents, however, were frequently stored 
complete with their explosive burster charge, fuse and with rocket motors attached.  

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Husseins efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladins public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladins Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides hatred of
the United States
from the 9-11 commission
http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

I am not sure why this group keeps spamming the same thing
These personal attacks on me are confusing


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Nothing has been debunked
I ask you again to either prove it or apologize
Why you want to join these others on ignore is beyond me
all you have to do is ask or stop stating things without back up


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

Oh for fuck's sake, you make this too easy JRK:

The Iraqi chemical weapons stockpile consisted of chemical warfare agents
filled into munitions and bulk containers. Iraq declared an overall production of
some 3,850 tons of chemical agents during the past chemical weapons programme.
Approximately 3,300 tons of mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and sarin or a
sarin/cyclosarin mixture were weaponized into about 130,000 munitions, out of
which over 101,000 munitions were used during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi
chemical arsenal, *produced before 1991,*

Notice how you're listing all of the items they declared?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

These personal attacks on me are confusing[/QUOTE]

No insult or personal attack anyone has given has been as bad as the ones you've dished out.

Calling ppl who simply disagree with you on a political issue as anti-american and anti-soldier is about as low as I've ever seen anyone stoop to on this message board.  You've deserved all you've gotten and more.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> Oh for fuck's sake, you make this too easy JRK:
> 
> The Iraqi chemical weapons stockpile consisted of chemical warfare agents
> filled into munitions and bulk containers. Iraq declared an overall production of
> ...



You missed that one by 10 miles
What was required by resolution 1441?

*Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so.* Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq&#8217;s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; 
Resolution 687 
Key points of resolution 1441 
Resolution 1441

Thank you for proving my point better than I could ever
IT was Saddam's place to destroy everything that was classified a WMD
It never stated how old it was, it stated all and to prove


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

This is why there is so much confusion about these events
one day some-one woke up and made up llot of lies about HR 1442, IRAQ and what the issues were really about

it is clear how this has happened here with this link


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh for fuck's sake, you make this too easy JRK:
> ...



No, you're too fucking wrapped up in your own bias to see the simple truth in front of you:

1.  Those weapons - from pre-1991 - had been declared.

2. Those weapons - from pre-1991 - had been declared and 

3. Those pre-1991 weapons were known to be degraded. oh, btw - 

4.  Those pre-1991 weapons had been declared.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



where r those declared weapons?
when were they destroyed?
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptancenot even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...7KHBDA&usg=AFQjCNF5f7Np0YRHc8P-53bCuFpytJhtCg


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

It was not our place nor the UNs place to provide proof


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 29, 2011)

Why would anyone continue to spend countless hours on an internet message board trying to convince strangers that a failure was a success?


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> Why would anyone continue to spend countless hours on an internet message board trying to convince strangers that a failure was a success?



It was a success, sorry you feel the way you do Mr. clean
it has found the end Mr Clean
you guys have spammed this thing into another universe
And it is obvious to me that you care anything about any of this but to keep spamming

WHY?


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> where r those declared weapons?
> when were they destroyed?



Well, let's see JRK:  They DIDN'T exist when we invaded.

That's why after eight years, a trillion dollars or more and 4,000 Americans lives we haven't any.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

you keep saying the same over and over, Saddam said different than you
give it a rest bud


----------



## 8537 (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> you keep saying the same over and over, Saddam said different than you
> give it a rest bud



Saddam said he had those armaments in 2003?

Really?


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 29, 2011)

8537 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > you keep saying the same over and over, Saddam said different than you
> ...



It doesn't matter anyway, a leader saying he has WMD's is enough cause to blow up the country?  A few words, with no action backing it up?


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

when Saddam had those *6500 munitions i*s still unknown except for the 500+ that were found
those were still there in 2003
Google DOD, Munitions, meet WMD criteria
Really


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

when Saddam had those 6500 munitions is till unknown except for the 500+ that were found
those were still there in 2003
Google DOD, Munitions, meet WMD criteria
Really


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nothing has been debunked
> I ask you again to either prove it or apologize
> Why you want to join these others on ignore is beyond me
> all you have to do is ask or stop stating things without back up



If ignorance is bliss, he must be a pretty happy guy.



You have to wonder how he can look at all of the posts that clearly beat him and his arguments into the ground and simply ignore all of the evidence.

Rather than defend, he puts everyone with whom he disagrees on ignore...which is a derivative of the word 'ignorance', very fitting for JRK.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> when Saddam had those 6500 munitions is till unknown...



Only to you JRK, only to you are they unknown.

The rest of the world and even the Bush administration has admitted the truth, Iraq had no WMD's nor did they have a WMD program at the time of Bush's invasion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2011)

JRK said:


> Nothing has been debunked
> I ask you again to either prove it or apologize
> Why you want to join these others on ignore is beyond me
> all you have to do is ask or stop stating things without back up



To tell you that you are wrong, to provide incontrovertible evidence that you are absolutely wrong, to call you immorally stubborn when you refuse to admit that you are absolutely wrong is not character assassination, buddy rho, it is doing due diligence.

You are wrong.

Nothing you have provided can lead any objective reader of normal intelligent to any other conclusion.

JRK, this is on you.


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Let me remind every-one who remains in denial
the 6500 came from The UN and the Iraqis
not me
Google Blix, 6500 munitions, 1-27-2003


----------



## JRK (Sep 29, 2011)

Let me remind every-one who remains in denial
the 6500 came from The UN and the Iraqis
not me
Google Blix, 6500 munitions, 1-27-2003


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 29, 2011)

Let me remind everyone that JRK is in denial.


----------



## JRK (Sep 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let me remind everyone that JRK is in denial.



Jake we finally agree
I deny that GWB lied
I deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
I deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
I deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
I deny that the war was illegal
I deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
I deny that weapons Saddam had never existed
I deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
I deny that we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2011)

JRK, by all evidence and facts,

You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
You are wrong to deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
You are wrong to deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
You are wrong to deny that the war was illegal
You are wrong to deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
You are wrong to deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
You are wrong to deny we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda 


You are right to deny that weapons Saddam had never existed: they did, a long time before the war, and as such, were not relevant in 2003.

JRK, you are immoral to keep denying when the facts have been overwhelmingly presented to you in clear and convincing fashion to contradict all of your main points.

JRK, to call you immorally fixated on this is not character assassination.  It is a fact, and all reasonable Americans reading this thread are well aware that you will iie to promote your right wing progressive neo-con imperialism.


----------



## JRK (Sep 30, 2011)

Character assassination is not just immoral
It is liable
Jake did you know that?
Is that true Jake?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, by all evidence and facts,
> 
> You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
> You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
> ...



I have seen circumstantial evidence that Bush lied...but nothing that I would deem as proof he lied.
I have seen the same in regard to Blair..
Cant quite figure out what gain there would have been for Bush AND Blair to lie
Congress apporved the military action. Therefore there was no criminla activity
It is easy to say that the action in Iraq was wrong seeing as no WMD's were found. However, as you admit, he had them...and he gave us reason to believe he still had them. Not just our intel said so...the intel of many other countries said so.
You seem to ignore that Hussein ignored the terms of the treaty 
I am not sure why you think that Bush, Blair, and other heads of state wanted a war.....Bush has no history of enjoying watching american Men and Women die for no reason.
For that matter, neither does Blair.


----------



## editec (Sep 30, 2011)

Did we win the war?

What did we win, exactly?


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 30, 2011)

editec said:


> Did we win the war?
> 
> What did we win, exactly?



An empty vault.


----------



## JRK (Sep 30, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK, by all evidence and facts,
> ...



What I do not understand is why is this so personal to these people who there only response is to sate I am immoral
Not one of them has de bunked the following

GWB said the same thing in general that the UN was saying, hell everyone was just about including Saddam

The issue was HR-1442, not WMDS as the lie turned out to be
And my god if GWB had lied to congress does anyone think for one minute that congress in 07 would not have hung him?
That is the biggest evidence that all of those accusations were lies


----------



## JRK (Sep 30, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Did we win the war?
> ...



No-one claimed a vault had anything to do with it
Saddam being removed and a republic replacing it became official US policy with close to 100% approval in 1998
HR 1442 was not being complied with. The US congress stated in 2002 that if he does not, take him out
We did


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



The man asked what we won.

The answer is an empty vault.

Length of war  FAIL

Cost of war    FAIL

catch on yet?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny.  That is immoral.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 30, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 30, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



His dad's war and Saddam's promise to kill his dad could be 2 reasons he was looking for war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise.  I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly.  He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The bottom line?

You used the words "could be" and "think" to come to your summation.

And you see, my point is that is ALL people have to work with.

SO when I hear things like "the facts are the facts" I realize I am speaking to people that would never be successful as an attorney as you can not apply assumption to confirm anything as a fact.

That is known as circumstantial evidence.

And when it comes to political debates? People forget that they are applying their ideology when they assume...and therefore are not confirming facts, but instead taking facts and applying them to their ideology.


----------



## elvis (Sep 30, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I've been saying that for years.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 30, 2011)

elvis said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



It is one of the most sound theories I have heard to date.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Sep 30, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Well here's the facts;

1.) The Iraqi military and Saddam were zero threat to america.
2.) They couldn't hit us with any weapons, WMD's or not.
3.) Thousands of americans killed, tens of thousands injured permanently be it physical or mental.
4.) The Iraqi gov't is an apartheid gov't based on Islam run by a man with previous close ties to Hezbollah.  Christians are fleeing at a rate never before seen, even under Saddam.
5.) Trillions of dollars in debt racked up.

All the above reasons are why I was against the war start to finish.

Oh and one other off topic item, lawyers work on assumption all the time.


----------



## JRK (Sep 30, 2011)

Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
It was his documents that made claim there was Anthrax (Iraq not only admitted having it, they tried to claim they destroyed it)
The 6500 munitions missing came* from there documents*
the Nerve gas came *from there documents*

*there is no conspiracy here *Jar head, the left created it and kept saying it so many times it became the truth
Saddam and his goons could not supply the evidence that those weapons and elements had been destroyed
IT WAS THERE JOB TO DO THAT
My god how many times do we have to keep over this?
Res 687 and 1441
read them
Google Blixes speech 1-27-2003 to the UN

My god why do you people keep trying to re create what really occurred?


----------



## elvis (Sep 30, 2011)

JRK said:


> Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
> It was his documents that made claim there was Anthrax (Iraq not only admitted having it, they tried to claim they destroyed it)
> The 6500 munitions missing came* from there documents*
> the Nerve gas came *from there documents*
> ...



The Bush admin didn't lie.....  they exaggerated.


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

elvis said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
> ...



In fairness to ever-one involved the only people who exaggerated was Saddam and the U.N.
guys these events are all 100% a creation
There was no top secret anything
Saddam created the vacum of missing weapons
Blix reported it as such
we invaded

the rest of this crap the media made up, the public did no DD or forgot the truth when it counted


----------



## editec (Oct 3, 2011)

Another pointless fucking war that made a lot of socialist cronnies of the Government rich.

Another pointles fucking war that added to the national debt.

Another pointles fucking war where American servicemen are given the impossible task of turning a third world shithole into a nation run by adults.


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

editec said:


> Another pointless fucking war that made a lot of socialist cronnies of the Government rich.
> 
> Another pointles fucking war that added to the national debt.
> 
> Another pointles fucking war where American servicemen are given the impossible task of turning a third world shithole into a nation run by adults.



We did not start either war

The stimulus added as much to the debt while the wars have closed based in Saudi as well as Kuwait and cut down on the funding for the UN

The task the troops were ask to do is complete in Iraq and was a success
I expect no different in Afghanistan


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 3, 2011)

We are not talking about the stimulus but about the failed progressive right-wing neo-con Bush policies you have so poorly defended.  If you were the lead defense attorney at the Hague for your bushie leaders, JRIK, they all would be serving life without parole, and you too for being so stupid and immoral.  Both are criminally chargable in world politics.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Another pointless fucking war that made a lot of socialist cronnies of the Government rich.
> ...



All of that has been proven false in your  other threads and yet you keep claiming it.  Are you ineducable?


----------



## elvis (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


it's too late when there's a mushroom cloud???  

give me a fucking break..  He toyed with our fears and anger regarding 9/11.  if he'd given that speech before 9/11, they'd have run him out of town.


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

elvis said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Elvis I am not sure I follow
Are you saying GWB toyed with our fears?
then what do you call what Blix was doing? What was his agenda?
He said the same crap that W did
800 liters of anthrax
6500 munitions missing
Nerev gas


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Where did Blix call for an end to the inspections and the beginning of an invasion?


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



It was not Blix es place in life to prevent the next 9-11 or the next event with weapons from Saddam's mess
It was only Hans's place to verify the verification, that never happened. What happens if Hans comes out and says there is 500 metric tons of yellow cake as well as 500+ munitions from the 80s that are junk, but still have some mustard and Syrian gasses in the war heads
Do we invade then?
Why do you Libs never blame Saddam?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



JRK, you have lied.  I have sent your material to the U and those professors have forwarded some of the stupid arguments of yours (without your name attached) to other professors elsewhere.  They are going to use your progressive right-wing neo-con nonsense as why critical thinking in our universities as needed.


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

What amazes me about the liberals is there in-ability to point out what it they feel is not accurate. They claim that we lie, but never do they tell us why they make these claims they make

My favorite is the "that's been de bunked several times"
I have no proof but it is obvious some of these spammers are being paid


----------



## JRK (Oct 3, 2011)

What amazes me about the liberals is there in-ability to point out what it they feel is not accurate. They claim that we lie, but never do they tell us why they make these claims they make

My favorite is the "that's been de bunked several times"
I have no proof but it is obvious some of these spammers are being paid


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> What amazes me about the liberals is there in-ability to point out what it they feel is not accurate. They claim that we lie, but never do they tell us why they make these claims they make
> 
> My favorite is the "that's been de bunked several times"
> I have no proof but it is obvious some of these spammers are being paid



In that case you should take a bit of time and read back over this thread...and the other one.
There are plenty of counter-arguments to your statements.

But, reading your comment again, I suspect that you either have the memory of a goldfish or you simply refuse to accept any information counter to your pre-conceived position.

The funny thing though is your assumption that everyone that disagrees with you is a Liberal.
I suppose that includes GWB and Rumsfeld too?


----------



## LaterTrader (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
> ...



You really like to leave out the DETAILS, don't you?   For example.
NO WMD'S  as Bush and Cheney told us they had!   In other words, the President of the USA LIED to go to war!

Saddam was cooperating with UN inspectors until BUSH ordered them out.  But who among the weak minded, such as yourself, cares about those details??? You prefer the simplified, details left out, version of revisionist history that Bush, Cheney  and Fox seem to have pounded into your brain after so many years.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

LaterTrader said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



Awww, mate, you're just going to start him off all over again!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 3, 2011)

JRK has been given mountains of details, facts, stats, and data that completely debunk his tired right-wing progressive neo-con mantras of failed invasions and broken economies.  He did not graduate from any respectable college or university.


----------



## idb (Oct 3, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK has been given mountains of details, facts, stats, and data that completely debunk his tired right-wing progressive neo-con mantras of failed invasions and broken economies.  He did not graduate from any respectable college or university.



That's not fair Jake.
We all know that learnin' is a Liberal conceit.
All you need to be fully informed is Google and a keyboard.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

There is no reason for me to go back thru anything
No-one has de-bunked anything
I have not seen anything I have posted de bunked

Same ol Liberal armada 
Kind of like race baiting
Just make the claim, no need to back it up

Guys you may not realize it, but this crap does not work like it use too

Jake, get a life, chill out
I have ignored you for weeks now
If you have an issue with the facts, take it up with history I guess
I cannot change it


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

There is no reason for me to go back thru anything
No-one has de-bunked anything
I have not seen anything I have posted de bunked

Same ol Liberal armada 
Kind of like race baiting
Just make the claim, no need to back it up

Guys you may not realize it, but this crap does not work like it use too

Jake, get a life, chill out
I have ignored you for weeks now
If you have an issue with the facts, take it up with history I guess
I cannot change it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

Son, you have responded for weeks now though you say but do not act as if I am on ignore.  Liberals and conservatives and libertarians alike have debunked your false allegations and poorly supported evidence.

Your OP has been a monumental failure in defending your progressive right-wind neo-conservative imperialism.

A massive failure.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Son, you have responded for weeks now though you say but do not act as if I am on ignore.  Liberals and conservatives and libertarians alike have debunked your false allegations and poorly supported evidence.
> 
> Your OP has been a monumental failure in defending your progressive right-wind neo-conservative imperialism.
> 
> A massive failure.



Jake there has been a total of 4-6 people who have lied there way thru this entir thread
Yes I have responded to you last few acts of desperation, but your on my ignore list
I just do not take what you say serious any more
your angry we won
your angry come to find out there was more about Iraq than you were told
That's why you and drock and Ibb are so mad about these events

Look its never been about anything but 1 thing
the truth
and the truth is if any-one lied it was Saddam
There was reasons in HR 1441 to invade
Congress agreed
Clinton agreed in 98 for the same reasons
It was the right thing to do
we won
some of the cost has been off set by less funding to the UN
bases being closed in Saudi and Kuwait 
and as shown many times we were fighting Al Qaeda most of the time after 2003

its that simple
what is there to debunk?

dude you need to chill, stop being hateful towards me and anyone you dis agree with/ I am not the one who told you all of those lies


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

Your continued refusal to accept that you have p'wnd here only underlines your immoral stubborness.  Your unbending belief unsupported by the evidence remains adult thinkers of the type of mentality that led to _auto de fes _or the camps in various countries the last 100 years.

Your OP is fail.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your continued refusal to accept that you have p'wnd here only underlines your immoral stubborness.  Your unbending belief unsupported by the evidence remains adult thinkers of the type of mentality that led to _auto de fes _or the camps in various countries the last 100 years.
> 
> Your OP is fail.



U keep making the same accusations with nothing t back it up with. Your proving my point better than I ever could


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Son, you have responded for weeks now though you say but do not act as if I am on ignore.  Liberals and conservatives and libertarians alike have debunked your false allegations and poorly supported evidence.
> ...



You have to invent reasons why we don't like the war, because the basic facts we put right in front of your face don't fit your already pre-thought out assumptions. 

Let me correct you for the 1,000th time (probably literally) in these threads;

1.) Obviously, I'll never be mad about the U.S. winning a war military, despite your crazy hyperbole.
2.) No I haven't found out there was more in Iraq than the media says.  The exact opposite is true, I've found out there was far less in Iraq than what our gov't (dems and reps alike) led us to believe in order to get some of the american public favoring warmongering in Iraq.
3.) And I know this will never sink in but I'll repeat it just for the sake of getting the truth out, the reasons I don't like the war are the 4500 dead soldiers/10's of thousands of soldiers permanently ravaged physically and or mentally/100,000 dead Iraqis/trillions of debt we'll never have paid/putting a Hezbollah-Iran ally at the head of the country/installing an apartheid regime that's forced 100,000 minority religion members to flee the country.

Now obviously by all your posts you don't give a damn about anything I outlined in line #3, but keep pretending your position is pro-america, pro-soldier and pro-Iraqi.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Drock I d not pretend anything, there is no more of a person against harming our fellow human than me
Saddam was all about harming 
Its why we had no choice

and for the first time your response # 3 is an opinion I have no need nor desire nor reason to debate
fleeing the country?
Al Qaeda in Iraq claims massacre at Christian church in Baghdad - The Long War Journal
Al Qaeda Group Promises Attacks On Iraqi Christians - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
Iraq : al-Qaeda kill 46 Christians - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum
Al-Qaeda in Iraq threatens attacks on Christians - USATODAY.com
not sure why you ahve ignored these people and keep blaming the ones we are helping
thats your world of denial I guess


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Every single thing I posted in #3 is a fact, not an opinion.  You're just trying to discount facts that don't help you.

What christians in Iraq are getting help?  They're fleeing a country they felt they were safe in under Saddam.  Now that's run by a Hezbollah/Iranian agent who's our pal, they have to evacuate the country at never before seen rates.

Soon with the apartheid gov't we installed in Iraq, the christian population in Iraq will be zero.  And that's what you call a success and stable.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock your ignoring who it is that are harming the Christians
also the rest of you thread is about the same, chill out Drock
you were lied to, you were made a fool of and now that we won the I told you so argument is gone
and one other thing
trying to convince anyone Saddam was better than whats been voted to be in charge now is going to be tuff when Saddam killed 1 million of his own people it is alleged

Al Qaeda has killed about 100k sense they began to build up the forces in 02

 It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, *had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. T*his intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.
Former CIA director *George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography,* At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Why do you keep ignoring this stuff?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK continues to deny that the OP is fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK, telling you correctly that you are wrong, have been wrong, your "evidence" and position will continue to be wrong -- that is not hateful, simply the truth.

I doubt you have ever been engaged in critical thinking exercises where you suspend personal bias to examine all evidence.  If you have and are still saying you are right, then you are immoral because the evidence clearly rebuts your positions.

Your fail is only on you, JRK, for you are the hater to continue with is lie.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Why would an Iraqi christian give a damn who's killing him whether it's gov't or Al-Qaeda?  If they don't, why should I give a damn?

Here's the facts, they're evacuating at a rate far higher than they did under Saddam.  How can this be if the country is stable as you say?  Why would Iraqi christians flee a stable country in order to run to bordering nations like Iran/Saudi Arabia/Syria?  (I'm certain you'll dodge that question)

You understand I, or anyone, could provide you 100 links that state there was no Iraq and Al-Qaeda connection for every 1 link you find that shows a connection, right?


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, telling you correctly that you are wrong, have been wrong, your "evidence" and position will continue to be wrong -- that is not hateful, simply the truth.
> 
> I doubt you have ever been engaged in critical thinking exercises where you suspend personal bias to examine all evidence.  If you have and are still saying you are right, then you are immoral because the evidence clearly rebuts your positions.
> 
> Your fail is only on you, JRK, for you are the hater to continue with is lie.



Jake we have lost 6 million jobs sense 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
now that truth and the the truth that is the same info such as Al Qaeda being in Iraq before we invaded is not my truth
Its just the truth

thats all


----------



## kaz (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> The day people stop flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, we will get out of the removing of terror and terror supporting groups from the ME



That explains our attacking al Qaeda and the Taliban, which I already supported.

It does not explain our presence across the rest of the middle east, why we are trying to engage in nation building in afghanistan or government securing oil supplies rather then the private market doing it.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > The day people stop flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, we will get out of the removing of terror and terror supporting groups from the ME
> ...



Were are we at in the remainder of the ME?
we have weeks left in Iraq and that victory will be complete
we are out of Saudi, thanks to removing Saddam
And we have to be close to being out of Kuwait, Thanks to removing Saddam

and as far oil goes, we have far more oil right here than we need. we are not allowed tio touch it (I think that's about to change)


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

The oil in Iraq lie has about run its course also
3%?
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

The oil in Iraq lie has about run its course also
3%?
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> The oil in Iraq lie has about run its course also
> 3%?
> U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL



From your article (which i'm sure is another one of your links you neglected to read);

*NOT REALLY OIL 

Technically, it is not really oil at this stage, say geologists. Its kerogensort of an oil-like substance that, when heated in an expensive, laborious process, can be turned into a lower-grade oil, which can then be used in cars. 

Walter Youngquist, a geologist from Eugene, Ore., published an article on the web site of the World Energy Council which delves into this subject. Youngquist put it this way:

The term oil shale is a misnomer. It does not contain oil nor is it commonly shale. The organic material is chiefly kerogen, and the shale is usually a relatively hard rock, called marl. Properly processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. However, it has not gone through the oil window of heat (natures way of producing oil) and therefore, to be changed into an oil-like substance, it must be heated to a high temperature. By this process the organic material is converted into a liquid, which must be further processed to produce an oil which is said to be better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional oil deposits, but of lower quality than the upper grades of conventional oil.

There are currently two main processes for refining shale oil, both of which are capital and labor intensive. In one method, the shale is broken down on-site and heated. The gases and liquids can then be extracted. In the second, the shale oil is removed and transported to facilities where it is then heated and refined. *

Now i agree with you that we should be letting oil companies try and purchase these lands privately if they feel it fits into their bottom line, but this isn't even close to evidence for why oil wasn't a reason we invaded Iraq.


----------



## kaz (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Wow, a little hand waving and suddenly we aren't in the middle east and oil isn't a problem.  That's some serious twisting, don't hurt yourself there...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK, telling you correctly that you are wrong, have been wrong, your "evidence" and position will continue to be wrong -- that is not hateful, simply the truth.
> ...



You don't know what is the truth, son.  That's the issue here.  Your neo-con rightwing progressive imperialism helped to bust our economy for no real good in the Middle East.

Your OP has fallen apart and cannot be put back together.

You need to stand up, admit you are in error, and then go about fixing it.


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Is that the best you can do?
you make some accusations that are baseless, I respond, did it hurt your feelings?
I never said we are not in the ME
Our oil problem is a result of the EPA a hell of allot more than anything else
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 4, 2011)

The US has massive oil is no excuse for invading Iraq.  The two are unconnected except in JRK's head.  We should not have invaded.  We won the military battle in three weeks, then lost the peace over the next eight years, which we are proceeding to do in Afghanistan.  This has been the greatest foreign disaster in American history.


----------



## kaz (Oct 4, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


Don't cry, I had to tease you since nothing you posted countered what I said.

How does our having massive oil counter my point government should not be securing oil supplies?  I said we don't belong in the middle east and you said we are winning wars over there.  I said we shouldn't be nation building and you didn't address that at all.  You're too funny.  Do you actually have an argument against any of my points or you do you just like making it sound like you do?


----------



## JRK (Oct 4, 2011)

kaz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Cry?
dude there comes a point with some of you that what you have to say really does not matter
No what I said is we had won one of the wars and were leaving there
I also stated that by winning that war we have also added 2 more countries to you list of ME countries we "dont belong" in, that we have or are leaving
your claim of nation building was so childish what was i suppose argue? and exactly what is it we were suppose to do with these countries that at best had OBL and Saddam running them?
were not in the nation building business, we went into the kill every MF that wants kill us business and out of that came 2 republics. They had no choice
One of those are standing alone now
If you would pay attention in stead of trying to look like your smart and stop wasting your life with this trying to make your fellow American look foolish, this information was and is obvious


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It's obvious that we aren't nation-building?  You should rename this thread to;

"See how many facts JRK can deny in one thread."

Iraq: $9 Billion in Reconstruction Funds Missing - ABC News

*"In a little noticed report last week, a US auditor concluded that $8.7 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq is unaccounted for by the Department of Defense. With Iraq struggling financially as the US withdraws, the vanished money has become a symbol of the dysfunctional American-led rebuilding effort. "

"The US Congress gave the Iraqi government a separate $53 billion for reconstruction."*

So we wasted $53 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars on Iraqi infrastructure, then we gave another $9 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars that magically disappeared never to be seen again.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The stimulus was 550 billion cash
Obama 1/2  of tarp was about 200 billion in which the auto industry (UAW) got 80 of that
Now we could have made the Iraqi infrastructure a loan, or we could have done the right thing (which is what we did)
as far as the 9 billion goes
whats that got to do with the 80 billion the UAW got?
I mean if you want to talk about missing cash then where is that money?

I got no issue with bringing up the 9 billion, I want to know where it went also, but let us not stop there
And let us also talk about the 500 million that is gone from that Bk company that we funded that was suppose to be a leader in green tech


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I understand why you want to deflect from a problem regarding nation-building in Iraq, but this thread is about Iraq, not all the money wasted from republican and democrat fascist legislation like TARP.

You said we aren't in the nation-building business, I'm telling you that you're 100% wrong and I think it gives the board a good view on how clueless you are about the Iraq situation when nation-building is a big aspect of the War.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Overall, the United States has spent $44.6 billion in taxpayer funds on rebuilding Iraq, about half of it to train, equip and support Iraq's military and police forces.
Rebuilding Iraq: Slow but steady progress - USATODAY.com

That is an investment in peace. I am sure also it is part of the 800-900 billion total that every-one keeps talking about

It Is sort of like the 30 billion Israel gets the next 10 years


----------



## strollingbones (Oct 5, 2011)

these guys


One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday. 


1-in-3 vets: Iraq, Afghan wars were not worth it - US news - Life - msnbc.com


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

strollingbones said:


> these guys
> 
> 
> One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.
> ...



And according to JRK, those vets are anti-america and anti-soldier, since you have to favor the War in Iraq to be pro-soldier and pro-america.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It's nation-building, at least now you're acknowledging it and "shockingly" of course supporting it rather than denying the obvious, that we're a nation of nation-building.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Oct 5, 2011)

strollingbones said:


> these guys
> 
> 
> One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.
> ...



From your link:

"and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.

The findings highlight a dilemma for the Obama administration and Congress as they struggle to shrink the government's huge budget deficits and reconsider defense priorities while trying to keep public support for remaining involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the longer term"

I thought that comment was very significant in the face our our own financial difficulties here at home. We have people who refuse to cut spending on defense, yet many of those who fought for the US have a clearer picture of the reality.

Of course, those that are tools of the Industrial-Military Complex will ignore that opinion and continue to press for more cuts in programs that effect the middle class and poor.

The US spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined while our own country econmically crumbles. That makes sense?


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > these guys
> ...



I have a real issue with an opinion poll that based on a F---ING LIE
WHAT PART OF BEING DONE IN IRAQ DONT YOU UNDERSTAND? AND OF COURSE MSNBC IS ON TOP OF THERE GAME HERE ALSO
Maliki: Troops out by 2012 | POLITICO 44
Maliki also called attention to a sense of "paranoia" within the United States of an Iraq-Iran alliance. 

"For Iraq to be dragged into an axis or an orbit, that's impossible, and we reject it whether this comes from Iran, Turkey or the Arabs," Maliki said.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



The man with ties to Iran and Hezbollah is downplaying them to the media?  I'm shocked!!!


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



shocked?
you have a so called news agency asking questions to "troops" about events that do not even exist any more
and now you have lap dogs who use that bogus poll with a bogus question as information
EVERY-ONE in the media knew that in 08 Iraq and GWB signed an agreement to be done by 2012
there are kids who were ask that question that were in the 10th grade then

That is bull shit and MSNBC has become a joke for that very reason


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I was being sarcastic.  Of course Maliki is going to downplay his Iranian and Hezbollah connections now that he's the Iraqi PM who gets U.S. taxpayer money.  

Still can't accept the reality that there's an enormous group of veterans who are against the wars?


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



accept what?
Dude i dont know what the question was
how it was asked
who were the respondents
And why is it that Iraq was even mentioned? were done there

You know what I have had trouble believing this entire time that you continue to put comments out there I have never said? th*at an adult would volunteer to go fight in a war he was against anytime after 3/2003*
That is all I have ever said
you explain to the world how an adult would be against either war while at the same time volunteer to go fight it and then I will believe 1 in 3 feel that way that poll stated they did


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



JRK, you are the one who is wrong here.

Your mental disability apparently prevents you from processing information critically and objectively.

What is that you don't get: your narrative about Iraq does not meet the evidence.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



That's not for me to explain, you should ask war vets who are against the war these questions.  I provided you a members list for the website Iraq Veterans Against the War, you then proceeded to lie about it and say it was only national guards when in fact it had army/navy/marine/air force members right on the page.

I can provide the page again if you want to ask them why they're against the war, and the page itself has their reasons.  These people are very brave and should be saluted, rather than insulted or have their patriotism questioned.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock do realize lying about me in this manner is a serious civil offense?
what your trying to do to my reputation is so serious
do you have any fucking idea how serious what your doing is?
Your so clueless about right and wrong and what could come from this
why do you keep doing it?
I have ask you I do not know how many times to stop lying about me in this public forum and you will not
Dude this is no game
enough is enough, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH


----------



## G.T. (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You're a fucking loon above all loons. You have HAD ENOUGH?? The fuck are you going to do? 

Saying whatever the hell anyone wants about you on this forum is NOT A SERIOUS MATTER. At all. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S YOU, a drooling fucking idiot walking through the day spiddling going "iraq....booosh.....me right you wrong.....iraq...boooosh...me right you wrong......iraq...boooosh......me right you wrong....."

It's not serious, at all. In fact, it's hilarious.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

G.T. said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



a drooling fucking idiot
We have witnessed as bad as it gets. No matter if people agree or dis agree there is no excuse for this
I feel sorry for you dude and every-one around you that you treat this way
so you think lying about a person in a public forum is no big deal?


----------



## Chris (Oct 5, 2011)

Iraq war....

Wasted $1 trillion dollars.

Cost thousands of American lives.

Establishes a Shia government in Iraq allied with Iran.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



No, lying about a person on a public forum is no big deal...........usernames are unanimous, dipshit. _A-durrrr. _

The fuck you think this is?> "excuse me judge, user handle pipsqueak said to user handle jrk (my handle) that i have very bad grammar and am an obsessive compulsive who can't get over the fact that people disagree with me. Can I sue, for libel?"

Judge: "Umm, no dipshit. You're a unanimous username, A, and B, prove they're lying with you 200 Iraq war/ Booooosh threads." 




And also, they're not lying. You're a spiddling troll who obsessively keeps bringing the same rehashed conversation up, over and over and over. And I'll be there every time, to point it out. I'm good like that.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Point out what I said as a lie.  I'll provide the link to your own quote saying it.  Do you have short term memory issues?  

And no it's not serious, by all means call a lawyer, throw some money at him for a meeting and when you get to the meeting have this convo;

JRK-"Hello, someone who doesn't know my identity is ruining my ability to make money and pursue a career."

Lawyer (rolls eyes)-"Ummmm ok who is it?"

JRK-"An anonymous message board person I'll never know, meet or see."

Lawyer-"Get the hell out of my office."


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock do you really think you or any-one else would get on my nerves to the point in which I would involve a lawyer?
Are you nuts?
Dude what your doing is something that in a civil court could be seen as liable. You cannot go around stating as fact things like I said that veterans were not patriots. 
I have never said that Drock
Drock this has gone to far for me. I am an adult who has no desire to spend any more of my life being attacked because of the way I feel
But do not think for one minute that this message board is some place you or your buddy GT can just do wat ever you want to do.
That goes for all of us

This is a public forum Drock
if you think putting it in the news paper or saying it here is any different, than you tell me what it is
I have wasted enough of my time with this crap Drock, you need to do the same


----------



## idb (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Yet, you keep coming back.

Are you holding your breath right now?


----------



## idb (Oct 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> Iraq war....
> 
> Wasted $1 trillion dollars.
> 
> ...



....job done...according to JRK.


----------



## G.T. (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



jrk says the troops or anyone who disagrees with iraq war are not patriots

Now, go sue. 





(in case you're REALLY THAT STUPID, the difference between here and a newspaper is that one here, you are UNANIMOUS. Jesus christ, please tell me you see the difference. You can't be libled if nobody is using your real name.....oh for fuck's sake.  one big jrk-off


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



What is sad, JRK, is that you lie about yourself daily here.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

G.T. said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



JRK earlier in this thread said you have to support the War in Iraq in order to be pro-america and pro-soldier.

I then asked him, including links to their website, about the Iraq War Veterans who are against the war, were they anti-soldier and anti-america?  He refused to answer.

So all we have to go by is his blanket statement, that anyone who disagrees with him about the Iraq War (in other words 95% of the world population) hates america and hates soldiers, including former soldiers who are against the war.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




I feel sorry for you Drock, I really do


----------



## G.T. (Oct 5, 2011)

heh, he did say that I just looked. Now, I can say with conviction, he's a liar.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Keep pretending it's a big deal if it makes you feel better.  I'll keep living in reality, saying whatever the hell I want on here.

Now please, point out what line I said that's a lie.  

I didn't say you said all veterans weren't patriots, you say all veterans who agree with you are patriots, an astonishingly arrogant point of view.

However everyone who disagrees with you, including the PARTICULAR Iraq and Afghanistan vets who disagree with you, are anti-america and anti-solider.

I can provide the link to you saying that, which I've already done, but will happily do it again.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

You know the level of how far this whole thing has got is down to a place now that I will not go

As far as "wasting" 1 trillion dollars, then Obama did the same thing in 18 months with tarp and his failed stimulus
whats that men?
those lives you claim that are wasted? those lives were given by people who chose to be there. I find it very sick to judge what that person chose to do with there life so you could sit behind a key board and judge it


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



All you have to do is say this;

"I was wrong to say that everyone who doesn't support the war is anti-america and anti-soldier."

I feel sorry for you, for being too stubborn and not having the integrity to admit your mistake and make amends.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> You know the level of how far this whole thing has got is down to a place now that I will not go
> 
> As far as "wasting" 1 trillion dollars, then Obama did the same thing in 18 months with tarp and his failed stimulus
> whats that men?
> those lives you claim that are wasted? those lives were given by people who chose to be there. I find it very sick to judge what that person chose to do with there life so you could sit behind a key board and judge it



The only person who's judged any soldiers negatively on this thread is you when you attacked everyone who disagreed with your position on Iraq.


We're attacking your beloved Washington bureacrats for sending this soldiers to a war based on a pile of lies.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK apparently is one of those folks who if you don't accept his world view and tell him so, you are not only wrong but apparently evil as well.

No one cares whether JRK goes or not.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK apparently is one of those folks who if you don't accept his world view and tell him so, you are not only wrong but apparently evil as well.
> 
> No one cares whether JRK goes or not.



If that is true, why did you go out of your way to say that? here i was minding my own business and here you come and say that no-one cares whether I go or not, then dont care Jake
Okay?

My fellings about the things those who choose to go to Iraq and do what was ask of them are mine to keep
I dont care if you like that or not, and I have a feeling the ones who chose to go over there and keep you safe so you can attack me this evening do not care either Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK apparently is one of those folks who if you don't accept his world view and tell him so, you are not only wrong but apparently evil as well.
> ...



JRK, no one believes you are "minding" your "own business".  You are trying to revise history.  You will not be permitted to tell lies, son.  You will be outed every time you do.


----------



## JRK (Oct 5, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Go for it Jake
Does this make you a man?
by the way when are yawl going to start?


----------



## Lakhota (Oct 5, 2011)

Pew Study: Only A Third Of Veterans Who Joined After 9/11 Say Iraq And Afghanistan Were Worth Fighting | TPMDC


----------



## Nic_Driver (Oct 5, 2011)

G.T. said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


----------



## kaz (Oct 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> Iraq war....
> 
> Wasted $1 trillion dollars.
> 
> ...



I agree, but we still have a long way to go to reach the wasted money of the completely ineffective wars on poverty and drugs...


----------



## kaz (Oct 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> I was wrong to say that everyone who doesn't support the war is anti-america and anti-soldier."
> 
> I feel sorry for you, for being too stubborn and not having the integrity to admit your mistake and make amends.



Word.  

This is the issue JRK.  That many liberals say they support the troops while knee jerk believing in any accusation against them and excusing or even praising their enemies is true.  but there are a lot of us who really do support the troops and genuinely appreciate what they are doing for us and don't want to tie their hands to defend themselves, but we just want a better solution that involves their not being there.  My brother and cousin are vets of middle east wars.  That you say I don't support them because I think there are better solutions then endless wars against terrorists on the other side of the world to manipulate energy markets just makes you a fucking retard.


----------



## idb (Oct 5, 2011)

kaz said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I was wrong to say that everyone who doesn't support the war is anti-america and anti-soldier."
> ...



Woah there Kaz!
You need to use smaller words and shorter sentences.
He'll never follow you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



  You have not succeeded from your very first day on the board.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

These accusations have run there course. 
idb attacking a mans character accomplishes nothing
Your childish remarks have run there course with me. Good luck

If you support the troops 
who by choice 
volunteered to go fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and in Afghanistan,

It is hard for me to accept you do not support the very thing those same kids joined to do. 
Fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan
Stating anything else beyond that about me, my feelings and what has actually been said is slanderous as well as doing harm to my reputation on this message board
But more importantly makes no sense

I fully expect that to continue for reasons I will never understand. God forbid we have 2 people in this country with 2 different opinions


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

In addition I noted the comment again that this is about oil, and some-one in this group is a f------ retard for some reason that made no sense to me, especially when Iraq supplies 3% of the worlds oil. Yea I am sure were going to have kids give all they have for cornering 3% of the worlds oil market
you idiots

Kids you all need to a much better job of re searching the subject matter. Your constantly making a fool out of your self's

Let me throw one more nugget out there. Increasing the worlds oil supply means lower crude oil pricing, that goes against every other lie that has been said about these events. We have so much shale and natural gas right here in the US that Obama will not let us touch it goes against everything you believe. 
Following your logic, that we sacrificed close to 5000 young adults lives for 3% of the world oil market, well help me understand here.
That is as far as I can take it.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

In addition I noted the comment again that this is about oil, and some-one in this group is a f------ retard for some reason that made no sense to me, especially when Iraq supplies 3% of the worlds oil. Yea I am sure were going to have kids give all they have for cornering 3% of the worlds oil market
you idiots

Kids you all need to a much better job of re searching the subject matter. Your constantly making a fool out of your self's

Let me throw one more nugget out there. Increasing the worlds oil supply means lower crude oil pricing, that goes against every other lie that has been said about these events. We have so much shale and natural gas right here in the US that Obama will not let us touch it goes against everything you believe. 
Following your logic, that we sacrificed close to 5000 young adults lives for 3% of the world oil market, well help me understand here.
That is as far as I can take it.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> In addition I noted the comment again that this is about oil, and some-one in this group is a f------ retard for some reason that made no sense to me, especially when Iraq supplies 3% of the worlds oil. Yea I am sure were going to have kids give all they have for cornering 3% of the worlds oil market
> you idiots
> 
> Kids you all need to a much better job of re searching the subject matter. Your constantly making a fool out of your self's
> ...



Fucking retard, idiots, kids, this from a man who cries and pouts anytime someone doesn't show message board etiquette.

You're the biggest hypocrite on the board. 

And I see you STILL won't take back your line that you have to agree with the War in Iraq to be pro-america and pro-soldier, you actually defended it.  So you're STILL saying the war veterans who are against the wars are anti-america and anti-soldier.

Despicable.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

kaz said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > I was wrong to say that everyone who doesn't support the war is anti-america and anti-soldier."
> ...



Drock the F------ retard comment came from here


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > In addition I noted the comment again that this is about oil, and some-one in this group is a f------ retard for some reason that made no sense to me, especially when Iraq supplies 3% of the worlds oil. Yea I am sure were going to have kids give all they have for cornering 3% of the worlds oil market
> ...




Drock that is the second time in 24 hours you have lied about me on this public message board
yes I am keeping count
yes Other people are looking at these now
Have a blessed day


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

Drock tells the truth about JRK, I tell the truth about JRK, others tell the truth about JRK, yet only JRK is correct here.

JRK is mentally and emotionally damaged goods personally, and he can't argue a point successfully in public.


----------



## 8537 (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK has gone from debating the merits of his argument that is lacking all merit...To threatening charges of slander on an anonymous message board!

This thread - and the other five just like it - just keep getting better and better.

JRK, there's a whole world out there. Go spend some time in it.  There's a reason no one is jumping to your defense in these threads anymore.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Did you say this, yes or no?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-146.html

*"If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops"*-JRK

Now, I'll ask AGAIN, will you take back that line and admit that you can support the troops without supporting the wars?

Because if you repeat that you can't, than you're saying the Iraq Vets who are against the War in Iraq don't support the troops.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

8537 said:


> JRK has gone from debating the merits of his argument that is lacking all merit...To threatening charges of slander on an anonymous message board!
> 
> This thread - and the other five just like it - just keep getting better and better.
> 
> JRK, there's a whole world out there. Go spend some time in it.  There's a reason no one is jumping to your defense in these threads anymore.



I have not threatened anything to anyone bud
what has happened to me is slanderous, but is to much of a joke for any-one to take it serious
You people need to chill out, get a life
And as far as no-one coming to my defense. That does not surprise me
People are sick of this childish crap as I am

you smeared my name just because you dis agreed with me and no-one likes that done to them
me?
It does not bother me because I know I am right. No-one takes this message board seriously anyway, especially with people like you on it

You have offered nothing bud but to smear my name, that's all you have done
why?
because we do not agree on the war in Iraq
you have not debated any thread I put out there
any fact
any information
you have tried to create a person that does not exist and you failed. I would be really happy having Jake, Drock and you coming to my defense
that would make my day to have that caliber of an American on my side

I had you ignore for a long time, smearing my name and others telling me about had run its course
I thought this would stop it, I was wrong


----------



## 8537 (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> > JRK has gone from debating the merits of his argument that is lacking all merit...To threatening charges of slander on an anonymous message board!
> ...



Then why do you keep mentioning things about keeping count and "other people looking at these things"?  You're not smart enough to weasel your way out of your lies.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

8537 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 8537 said:
> ...



I am not lying about that
there are people monitoring these messages and it has come to a point and time where i would like to know how many times there is things stated about me that are not true and have nothing to do with the thread

Look dude you guys just do not get it. going around in life and behaving like this is un acceptable
I could care less we dis agree
I could care less you hate my guts because i support the removing of Saddam and OBL and those radical who support(ed) them

1000 threads ago you guys went nuts on me, my reputation and started to say things about me I never said
It has done allot of harm to my reputation on this message board. I have ask all of you to stop it
I have been called a fucking idiot and retarded in the last 24 hours alone
for what?
because we dis agree?


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

for the record
I posted @ 10:16 A.M a simple thread that has 2 polls within it
8537 your right, no-one responds anymore. That was just the opposite prior to the attacks that have went on to my reputation
Why?
Did you get and the rest of you get what you wanted?
is silencing people who dis agree with your position the way you silenced me going to help Obama?

Good luck going thru life this way
I am not going any where


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> for the record
> I posted @ 10:16 A.M a simple thread that has 2 polls within it
> 8537 your right, no-one responds anymore. That was just the opposite prior to the attacks that have went on to my reputation
> Why?
> ...



Rather than answering a simple question I posed to him, and ignoring it AGAIN, he's resorted to victim, woe is me kind of talk.

Nobody wants to silence differing opinions.

But here's the difference between you and me an those who agree with me on this thread.

You think people who disagree with you are anti-america and anti-soldier.

We just simply disagree with you, we don't think you're anti-america or anti-soldier for disagreeing with us.  

You're the one who made it uber-personal, attacking everyone's patriotism solely because they don't agree with your opinion on a political issue.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > for the record
> ...



Drock that is the third lie this morning about me
I have never stated anyone anti anything, nor have I made any comment about any-ones patriotism
i am going to tell you something else. If I had, that my business
You guys went so far over line here just because we dis agreed on the war and your still piling on
enjoy it Drock, there are no winners here I can promise you


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Scroll up, I provided the exact link and the exact quote where you said exactly that in this very thred.  That people who disagree with you on the war are anti-soldier.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock this has went way past that
why dont you just leave alone dude
what because I said if you dont support the wars how can you support the troops gives you permission to say I said that your "anti soldier"
my opinion is just that Drock, my opinion
I feel strongly that EVERY-ONE involved in the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq have either lied or have been lied about
I put that info out there, facts, not opinions
and from that you claim I have called people all of these things you keep claiming i have said? and that I am a fucking retard?
Do you have any understanding of the what the term "taken out of context" means

Just because we dis agree?


----------



## Nic_Driver (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



This is too funny.

JRK, I simply wouldn't have believed it had I not watched it with my own eyes.

Knowing what they say about ignorance, you have to be the most blissful person in history.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Sad that you're saying these Iraq War vets can't support the troops simply because they disagree with you.  I've never heard such arrogance on this board.

Members | Iraq Veterans Against the War

(ivaw=Iraq Vets Against the War)

How can you say these guys don't support the troops?  THEY ARE THE TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

and it wasn't me who called you a fucking retard, btw


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

My sole concern with JRK is that he keeps repeating the same arguments with the same effect, failure, then he accuses everyone of being haters.

For heavens sake, JRK, you have an opinion.  Much of your evidence has been successfully countered, in my opinion.

None of that detracts that we are all Americans concerned for the welfare of our country.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> and it wasn't me who called you a fucking retard, btw



does it matter?
your part of the problem Drock
why dont you just let this crap go?
dont you think there has been enough harm done here?


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> My sole concern with JRK is that he keeps repeating the same arguments with the same effect, failure, then he accuses everyone of being haters.
> 
> For heavens sake, JRK, you have an opinion.  Much of your evidence has been successfully countered, in my opinion.
> 
> None of that detracts that we are all Americans concerned for the welfare of our country.



Jake, give this BS a rest
every-one knows with you it has never been about the war, the troops, the facts

Jake did congress approve the invasion in 2002?
Jake was there a speech given by Hans Blix to the Un on 1-27-2003 about munitions, Anthrax, Nerve Gas and Iraq?

Jake thats all I have said


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



that would be the 4th lie this morning you have said about me
And to date the biggest
keep it going Drock


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK, the OP states your point and you failed.  Let it go.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, the OP states your point and you failed.  Let it go.



Jake that is the diff with you & I
This was not done to win anything, it was done because it was the right thing to do
This thread has been about the lies and the harm done to my reputation far a long time Jake
keep it up


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

The right thing "to do" is admit your fail.

Keep it up.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You said you can't be against the war and support the troops.

These vets are against the war, therefore according to you, they can't support the troops.

Please explain to me how i'm wrong.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > and it wasn't me who called you a fucking retard, btw
> ...



No i don't think there's been any harm done, it's an anonymous message board.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



its called to take out of context
My comment made no remark of veterans of any wars of any time
My comment is about a matter of confusion, not of matter of fact
In fact, My comment was not a comment at all and for the record, it was a question

How somehow with your help became stated
as to state
as to state as a fact, that never happened
keep going Drock, your getting there


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



As long as you're now changing your view and saying it's possible to not support a war and support the troops that's good enough for me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

Thank you for admitting that troops who don't support the war can still support the troops.

Thanks for changing that.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock there you again
I have changed nothing
I have remained the same thru out. the only one changing is you
Your going to learn in life how important it is not to be re writing history after the fact
What I have said all along and what got all of you Liberal in a place with me we should have never been was a simple question
how can you support the troops and not support the very thing those same troops have volunteered to do? 
you took that out of context and have said some very bad things about me and re created events to make it look as though I had said things i have never said
Drock stop while your ahead
Learn form this and move on while the moving on is good


----------



## kaz (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> there are people monitoring these messages



Ours, yes, but not yours thanks to alcoa...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK will not be allowed to successfully revise our American narrative.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I cut and pasted your exact quote, not changing a single word/letter/punctuation mark.

I'm glad you think you can support the troops without supporting a war, that's all i need to hear.


----------



## idb (Oct 6, 2011)

JRK, you should just tell these nasty people to go to hell...then start a new thread - and not invite them/us.


----------



## JRK (Oct 6, 2011)

idb said:


> JRK, you should just tell these nasty people to go to hell...then start a new thread - and not invite them/us.



idb i dont care either way. You know being lied about is never a good thing, it tends to take every-one down a path that never ends good
Dude this childish behavior is simply because we dis agree on events that are really not that complicated 
To dis agree is one thing, to slander and to attack a persons character is another. I also have yet to understand why it was so important to each of you to make total asses of your selves and without exception ignore the simplicity of the thread

There was Al Qaeda in Iraq we know now prior to us invading
There was something found over there that kept GWB from being impeached, that is very simple
I mean these are simple facts that all I did was put them out here for the public to view and you guys flipped out
I know why and I have news for you. BHO has a record he will have to try and defend. Its not about Bush anymore

I would be embarrassed if I was you, I really would. you keep thinking this is cool. I am just a middle age CM waiting on my next project, couple of kids, surfed when I was younger, cancer survivor and you act like I am some evil  terrorist that, well I dont understand it enough to even try and explain it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 6, 2011)

Only JRK needs to be embarassed for acting loony.

He is in a class of his own, period, and it ain't on the top level class.

My goodness.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Oct 6, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only JRK needs to be embarassed for acting loony.
> 
> He is in a class of his own, period, and it ain't on the top level class.
> 
> My goodness.



My goodness is right, I can't believe him either Jake.


----------



## idb (Oct 7, 2011)

It's all going swimmingly!
Iraq car bomb at funeral near Hillah kills 17 - Los Angeles Times
Iraq bombing and robbery leave 3 dead - Boston.com
Sahwa Fighters Dead: Iraq Bomb Explosion Kills Anti-Al Qaeda Fighters
Dailymotion - Iraq car bomb kills 18 - a News & Politics video
Deadly Iraq bomb releases chlorine gas (15 dead) - Democratic Underground
Officials: 29 dead in suicide bomb in Iraq mosque - Democratic Underground


----------



## Lakhota (Oct 7, 2011)

delete double post


----------



## Lakhota (Oct 7, 2011)

> By Robert Burns
> 
> U.S. forces did not know the country's languages and did not make "an effective effort" to learn them, he said.
> 
> ...



More: Afghanistan War: Ex-Commander Stanley McChrystal Says U.S. Started War With 'Frighteningly Simplistic' View Of Country

Brain Drain: Arabic Linguists First Chapter - 'Unfriendly Fire,' by Nathaniel Frank - NYTimes.com


----------



## JRK (Oct 7, 2011)

idb said:


> It's all going swimmingly!
> Iraq car bomb at funeral near Hillah kills 17 - Los Angeles Times
> Iraq bombing and robbery leave 3 dead - Boston.com
> Sahwa Fighters Dead: Iraq Bomb Explosion Kills Anti-Al Qaeda Fighters
> ...




Good thing the Iraqis are fighting Al Qaeda for us. By the way on average there was 41 people murdered in the US last night, 41
What is the difference? to hose who were murdered? none


----------



## JRK (Oct 7, 2011)

Lakhota said:


> > By Robert Burns
> >
> > U.S. forces did not know the country's languages and did not make "an effective effort" to learn them, he said.
> >
> ...



Good thing we changed course then isn't it?
Congress made that decision to attack, not GWB, he only ask

AND whats the worst item in your link was that now it seems Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
does not do your links very good in the trust dept.

According to the document Zarqawi arrived to the Sunni areas in central Iraq. This document was written by one of Al Qaeda top leaders called &#8220;Saif Al Adel&#8221;.

*There were many accounts about Zarqawi presence in Iraq before the war in particular in Northern Iraq with &#8220;Ansar Al Islam&#8221; an active Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group that was present in the Kurdish areas of Iraq long before the war started*. The document also proves that Ansar Al Islam helped Al Qaeda members establish themselves in Iraq before the war started.

Al Qaeda Document: Zarqawi Came to Iraq Before The War To Prepare The Fight Against U.S

do not waste your time linking this rebuttle to out dated and mis informed intel please


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2011)

JRK has fail on this OP.  Let's close it down, and move on.


----------



## JRK (Oct 7, 2011)

wonder why any-one would be scared of this link being open?
any ideas Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2011)

Scared?  

If you wish to continue to be beaten soundly and roundly to the ground, Lee, go ahead with it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 7, 2011)

JRK said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > By Robert Burns
> ...



But it was a bad thing when Harry Reid suggested that if we don't change course the war is lost on the floor of the Senate.

Congress gave the President the power to decide.  You should read the authorization bill sometime.

Al Queda had a cell in the Kurdish section of Iraq.  That section of Iraq was being protected by the Allies.

So even though we were victorious, the decision to invade an occupy Iraq was a monumental blunder in the war on the terrorist who attacked us on 9-11.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 10, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



From today's news:

"The Iraqi government is aligning itself with Iran in trying to bolster the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Unlike several other Arab governments, al-Malakis Shiite-led government is not only defending al-Assad but actively joining forces with Ahmadinejad in trying to prop him up - even in the face of the brutal assault against peaceful Syrian protesters. "

Oh yeah. Big success.


----------



## idb (Oct 10, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Boy, talk about having your cake etc, etc



> Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said US troops might still be able to stay in Iraq as trainers beyond a 2011 withdrawal date, even though the country's political blocs have rejected giving immunity to any American soldiers.
> 
> Maliki last week won backing from Iraq's leaders for US troops to stay on for training, but without the legal immunity demanded by Washington as part of an accord for an American military role in Iraq more than eight years after the invasion.



US troops may stay in Iraq - middle-east - world | Stuff.co.nz


----------



## JRK (Oct 11, 2011)

Not sure what any of that has to do with what is really going on. Not sure Why the Liberals are so concerned about Iran, If Obama would have supported the recent events there that bunch of loons running that country would be gone
As far as leaving troops there? GWB put the conditions i place to have them out of there by 2012 with the Iraqi president. If Iraq decides not to support any troops left there after 2012 and we keep them there after then, do not blame any-one but Obama
The rest of it is speculation. We know Iraq is a republic for the first time in many years. 
We know that the only people talking about leaving troops is Obama (wonder why)
Wall Street Journal:
Iraq Wants The U.S. Out: Prime Minister Insists All Troops Must Leave
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

You guys went from day one claims that were not true or at best 1/2 truths to now saying the reason we should not have wen is because of the ELECTED presidents ties to Iran

Good God


----------



## JRK (Oct 11, 2011)

Not sure what any of that has to do with what is really going on. Not sure Why the Liberals are so concerned about Iran, If Obama would have supported the recent events there that bunch of loons running that country would be gone
As far as leaving troops there? GWB put the conditions i place to have them out of there by 2012 with the Iraqi president. If Iraq decides not to support any troops left there after 2012 and we keep them there after then, do not blame any-one but Obama
The rest of it is speculation. We know Iraq is a republic for the first time in many years. 
We know that the only people talking about leaving troops is Obama (wonder why)
Wall Street Journal:
Iraq Wants The U.S. Out: Prime Minister Insists All Troops Must Leave
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

You guys went from day one claims that were not true or at best 1/2 truths to now saying the reason we should not have wen is because of the ELECTED presidents ties to Iran

Good God


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2011)

Independent Logic posted above the piece that undermines every argument of JRK, which he ignores, of course.  He has to ignore it.

*From today's news:

"The Iraqi government is aligning itself with Iran in trying to bolster the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Unlike several other Arab governments, al-Malaki&#8217;s Shiite-led government is not only defending al-Assad but actively joining forces with Ahmadinejad in trying to prop him up - even in the face of the brutal assault against peaceful Syrian protesters. "

Oh yeah. Big success. *


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 11, 2011)

But look at what&#8217;s going on right now. The Iraqi government is aligning itself with Iran in trying to bolster the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Unlike several other Arab governments, al-Malaki&#8217;s Shiite-led government is not only defending al-Assad but actively joining forces with Ahmadinejad in trying to prop him up - even in the face of the brutal assault against peaceful Syrian protesters. 

Is that why the United States went to war in Iraq - to see a Baghdad regime cozy up with Tehran against U.S. interests in the region?

The Bush and Obama administrations have now lost trillions of dollars and thousands of troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And even after all these years, the words &#8220;Mission Accomplished&#8221; seem as far away as ever. 

BLITZER&#039;S BLOG: Iraq aligns itself with America&#039;s foes &#8211; The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer - CNN.com Blogs

I'm sure we'll need to repeat this a few dozen more times for it to sink in to JRK.  Then after it does sink it, he'll find a way to tell us that it's a good thing that Iraq and Iran are the best of friends.


----------



## JRK (Oct 11, 2011)

VERY INTERESTING-



1. The Garden of Eden was in Iraq. 



2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!



3. Noah built the ark in Iraq... 



4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq. 



5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq...



6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq.



7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq. 



8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq ... 


9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel. 



10. Amos cried out in Iraq. 



11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.. 



12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq.



13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the Fiery Furnace!). 



14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the 'writing on the wall' in Iraq. 



15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq. 



16 Ezekiel preached in Iraq. 



17. The wise men were from Iraq ...



18. Peter preached in Iraq.



19. The 'Empire of Man' described in Revelation is called Babylon -- which was a city inIraq.



And you have probably seen this one: Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible.



But do you know which nation is second?



It is Iraq!

However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible.



The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia ... The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris And Euphrates River.



The name Iraq means country with deep roots.



Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. 



No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associated

with it than Iraq. 


And also, this is something to think about: 


Since America is
typically represented by an eagle.
Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages.


The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible) 


Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;

And there was peace.


(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!


I BETTER NOT HEAR OF ANYONE BREAKING THIS ONE OR SEE IT DELETED.


This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq.


Pass it on to everyone and pray.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 11, 2011)

JRK said:


> VERY INTERESTING-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well hell, why didn't you tell us that the reason we went there was because God told us to! 
I thought is was "imminent threat of WMDs" and because we have so much reverence and respect for the U.N...


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > VERY INTERESTING-
> ...



Dude chill the fuck out, stop taking everything so serious. The war is over, we won. One more thing for all of Iraq-Iran conspiratorial theorist. 
After yesterdays events if you think any-one wants to be caught dead in bed with Iran, your nuts
That BS has lost its spam-ability before that lie got started. Libs, chill out


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



We provide facts and links to back up the Iraq-Iran connection.

JRK responds with his typical childish insults, and of course not a single fact or link to back it up.

Same as what's gone on this entire thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> VERY INTERESTING-1. The Garden of Eden was in Iraq. 2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!3. Noah built the ark in Iraq... 4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq. 5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq...6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq.7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq. 8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq ... 9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel. 10. Amos cried out in Iraq. 11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.. 12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq.13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the Fiery Furnace!).
> 14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the 'writing on the wall' in Iraq. 15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq. 16 Ezekiel preached in Iraq. 17. The wise men were from Iraq ...18. Peter preached in Iraq.19. The 'Empire of Man' described in Revelation is called Babylon -- which was a city inIraq.And you have probably seen this one: Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible.But do you know which nation is second?It is Iraq!However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible.The names used in the Bible are Babylon, Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia ... The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris And Euphrates River.The name Iraq means country with deep roots.Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. No other nation, except Israel, has more history and prophecy associatedwith it than Iraq. And also, this is something to think about: Since America istypically represented by an eagle.
> Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages.The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible) Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah;And there was peace.(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!*I BETTER NOT HEAR OF ANYONE BREAKING THIS ONE OR SEE IT DELETED.*This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq.Pass it on to everyone and pray.



Sigh.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

Bringing religion into a political issue, the last ditch effort from the desperately hopeless.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



This thread has had so much UN challenged back up I would leave it alone if you libs I have on ignore would stop trying to make this thread into something its not
As far as insults go, I have not insulted any-one
Chill out is advice you give people who are not in control of there emotions
what links have you provided about this Iran-Iraq connection? I mean really. the onkly link i recall on that matter was them starting a dialect, now that's real scary, starting a dialect with you neighbor


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK is not in control of his emotions.  Most Hard Right folks are, like him, emotionally disturbed.  His progressive right wing neo-con imperialism has been a failure since the 1960s.  That won't change.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK is not in control of his emotions.  Most Hard Right folks are, like him, emotionally disturbed.  His progressive right wing neo-con imperialism has been a failure since the 1960s.  That won't change.



Coming from you that's classic.

You said I am not a Republican, you are.  Then you said I'm partisan.  Then you said being a libertarian I'm a totalitarian who's the opposite of a socialist.

Regarding "partisan," since according to you I'm not a republican and I'm the opposite of a socialist left me wondering who I'm partisan for since I'm not a republican or a democrat.

When you get hold of your emotions, then you can start talking about other people's emotions.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You claim this thread is about the UN, right after you post some crazy religious diatribe about Iraq?  Have you been drinking this morning?

Calling people nuts is an insult, even you know that.

Read through the thread, there's links everywhere about the Iran-Iraq connection.  I'm not going to post the same links again just so you can deny they've ever been posted in a couple pages.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK is not in control of his emotions.  Most Hard Right folks are, like him, emotionally disturbed.  His progressive right wing neo-con imperialism has been a failure since the 1960s.  That won't change.
> ...



I never realized I could get people to hate me so much with just putting information out there.
It has become joke. Calling your fellow american you do not agree with emotionally disturbed says it all


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lol you're a true delight JRK.

Here you are whining about people saying you're emotionally disturbed.

But it's PERFECTLY fine for you to call your fellow americans nuts.

I repeat, you're the biggest hypocrite on this board.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I do not recall ever calling any individual nuts
Hmmm more slander
you dont know when to stop do you?


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> 
> How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?



you got allot of thanks for a thread with no link, cannot debate anything that may not be true
raqi combatant dead (invasion period): 13,500&#8211;45,000 [39]
Insurgents (post-Saddam)
Killed: 26,051 (2003-2011)[40]
Detainees: 200 (U.S.-held)[41]
12,000 (Iraqi-held)[42]
Total dead: 38,778-70,278
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
That is along way from 1 in 4
it also is far less than is murdered in this country
typical liberal event. One states something that is not true, the rest jump in and repeat it. No-one says you have to support any of it, but you owe it to the TROOPS to be honest about it
not me

One other item, this was a Saddam failure, I am not sure who made any money on this


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You said anyone who points out a Iraq/Iran connection is nuts.

There's people all over this thread pointing out the very very obvious never ending list of connections between Iraq and Iran, so you're calling us all nuts.

You don't know what hypocrisy is, do you?


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



As I suspected Drock. making a comment about the event and calling me as an individual is night and day. both legally and morally
You are so worried about all the slander you have done on this message board
Dude just chill out. Trying to make a connection with Iraq and Iran especially after yesterday is nuts. Just chill out. And if you find something other than a commentary on the subject that was done after today, use it
I will be glad to read it and re butte it. Its just where did this get started? and now in its infancy of spam here comes Iran screwing it all up for you

I hate it

CHILL OUT DROCK


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I haven't provided any slander, so no I'm not the least bit worried about the story you have going on in your head that slander is taking place.  

You never rebutted any of the laundry list of facts showing a connection between Iraq's gov't and Iran, why should I believe you'll start now?

I'm perfectly chill, someone pouting about slander and typing in caps sure doesn't appear to be.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Drock when you make a false statement about a persons character or intend to do that persons character harm with intent for reasons that are *not* based on facts is slanderous Drock
Now, I have never rebutted anything you have said about the Iran-Iraq connection because there is nothing to re butte
when you start, I will be here waiting  
I think its time you go back on ignore for a while, your just trolling


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I know what slander is, I  haven't done any.  Every time you pout about slander I provide a link to the quote of you saying it.  I can't be held responsible for your short term memory issues.

Continue putting your fingers in your ear and screaming LALALALALALALA, you hate facts as you've proven in this thread.  You prefer your fantasy world.


----------



## Hardball_Refuge (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


-It seems to me, yes:
4)Economically destabilize our country
Done
5)Demonstrate we are capable of violating the Just War Doctrine
Done


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK is not in control of his emotions.  Most Hard Right folks are, like him, emotionally disturbed.  His progressive right wing neo-con imperialism has been a failure since the 1960s.  That won't change.
> ...



You are dribbling at the mouth.  You claimed your were libertarian, and I demonstrated you were rambling.

Words and terms have defined meanings, which may escape you.  You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts and definitions.

Now grow up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK and Kaz are falling apart.

Guys, deep breaths, and take your meds.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Hardball_Refuge said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



The failed stimulus cost the same as the Iraqi war. The Iraqi war in the long term is saving us money. We have closed bases in Saudi as well as Kuwait and the amount we were supporting the UN has went down as I recall
I have no idea what #5 means, that's some liberal, never mind. It means nothing. congress approved it, we invaded accordingly


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2011)

Hardball_Refuge said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Uh-Oh.  jfk is going to think you're calling him a liar


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Hardball_Refuge said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




SLANDER SLANDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Going thru life having to make up things that are not true about people you dis agree with and then thinking that is funny?
That is not normal. Is that all you have left?


----------



## Hardball_Refuge (Oct 12, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Hardball_Refuge said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Going thru life having to make up things that are not true about people you dis agree with and then thinking that is funny?
> That is not normal. Is that all you have left?



JRK is describing his own inner angst, projecting it onto others.  Sad.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

I dont get it, none of us do
Is this all you people have? I mean think about it, this is your life?
My God I feel sorry for all of you, I mean that


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

I dont get it, none of us do
Is this all you people have? I mean think about it, this is your life?
My God I feel sorry for all of you, I mean that


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

Deep breaths, JRK, deep breaths.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> I dont get it, none of us do
> Is this all you people have? I mean think about it, this is your life?
> My God I feel sorry for all of you, I mean that



Yep JRK, everyone is wrong but you.  Keep thinking that.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States 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. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
[edit]Doe v. Bush
Main article: Doe v. Bush
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion and this challenge failed. Judge Lynch summarized the claims for illegality as: "They argue that the President is about to act in violation of the October resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion&#8212;that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."
Judge Lynch summarized the position of the United States Government as: "The defendants are equally eloquent about the impropriety of judicial intrusion into the extraordinarily delicate foreign affairs and military calculus, one that could be fatally upset by judicial interference. Such intervention would be all the worse here, defendants say, because Congress and the President are in accord as to the threat to the nation and the legitimacy of a military response to that threat."
The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Lynch wrote "this issue is not fit now for judicial review" and that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[64]


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...a-petition-20111012,0,1203433.story?track=rss
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source, JRK.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Wow! I make a joke about God telling us to go to war and you start swearing - then tell *me* to "chill the Fck out"???? Massive whackjobbery! 
The war is over. What exactly did we win? 
The loss of our surplus and creation of the biggest deficit in history. 
The most corrupt regime in the world (according to non-US sources. 
A government which took all our money because they rfused to spend any of the money we gave them on their own country.
A country that is now aligning itself with Iran and Syria.
A country that is now aligning itself economically with China.
American lives and bodies.

Yeah. Big win.

Only the brain-washed and intentionally ignorant would call that a win.

Oh. And chill dude. Was that the Christian or secular version of fck you were using?


----------



## Hardball_Refuge (Oct 12, 2011)

Principles of the Just War
1.A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. 
2.A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. 
3.A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 
4.A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. 
5.The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. 
6.The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. 
7.The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. 

*The board won't let me cite the URL: "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more."


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



what surplus? that in the late 90s the GOP congress gave us?
big deficits came with big democratic elections
you got some proof to back up that claim about links to Iran after yesterday?
who is not working with China?

I am going to tell you again kid
chill out
the name calling is pre school, no-one will ever take you serious. if your worried about this countries debt, Obama is your problem, not GWB
Brain washed?  can tell you this bud, Who ever brain washed me has allot more class than you do
Just because we dis agree does not make you have to say all those things you called me. and as far as those soldiers who died volunteering to fight a war so you could use there sacrifice to make a point
I would not do that if i was you, them Marines take there war business pretty seriously. They did not go over there by choice so you can say they should not have been over there seems to me
but you go ahead and pretend that's your sacrifice to do what you want to with it, not I

God bless all of them


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Nice straw man. I state that the result of the Iraq war was not an over-all positive. You try to make it about Marines. People with weak points always try to change the subject. 

So you threw the first volley and now you're getting emotional because I returned fire? Poor baby. What is that old saying about being able to dish it out?
I am chilled! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of us aren't angry - _we're laughing at you_ 
You're (or as your would put it "your") pretty entertaining. It's fun to see people actually buy into the bs fed to them by The Machine.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

Hardball_Refuge said:


> Principles of the Just War
> 1.A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
> 2.A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
> 3.A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
> ...



well # 1 was meet when Blix stated on 1-27-2003 Saddam still had 6500 munitions, 8000 liters of anthrax and nerve gas after 10 years of resolutions
#2 was meet, the US congress did just that 10-2002
#3 was meet, see #1
#4 has been meet, a man who had killed 1 million Iraqis and would not adhere to Un resolutions is gone, a republic took its place, Improvement? night and day
#5, peace is established, far fewer people are being murdered in Iraq than here. If you claim there is no peace in Iraq then what is it we have here?
#6 okay, done
#7 Did a good job there also

whats the problem?
you see there is 1/2 of the truth there to your 1/2. Everything i have said is true


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



why is it you libs take all of this stuff so personal?
Change the subject? I am so tired of this subject 
Whining, Crying, facts mean nothing. You served? good for you. that gives you a right to use that sacrifice those kids made any way you want to?

You want to know how I feel on this matter, start from the beginning
You want to talk to me like like man talks to another man, anytime, any day


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

laughing at me?
damn you must be bored to think that much of me guys
This has found a place that is no fun
I stated the way i felt, you do not like
I do not care


----------



## jgarden (Oct 12, 2011)

> Republican Syndrome: Oppositional Defiant Disorder
> 
> Symptoms of ODD may include:
> 
> ...



*Obviously the OP and his supporters are suffering from a terminal case of "REPUBLICAN SYNDROME!"*


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

have a good one


----------



## Hardball_Refuge (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> Hardball_Refuge said:
> 
> 
> > Principles of the Just War
> ...


-What's the problem? Well, to state the thing simply, Iraq did not attack us. We went to war preemptively, which, by definition, violates the Just War Doctrine. I could argue the points you made. But since I'm new here, I don't want to come off as a know it all


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

I am going to make this as simple as I can
1) 10-2002 Congress approves for us to attack Saddam. No-one here has an issue with that
2) 1-23-2003 Hans Blix reports that there is 6500 munitions missing, Anthrax, and nerve gas No-one has an issue with that
3) we invade OMG
4) 500 +- munitions are found that are classified WMDS by the DOD, that evidence is presented to congress 2006, this is ignored
5) 500 Metric tons of yellow cake is old to Canada by the Iraqi govt, this yellow cake is never discussed before now and the number of stores on its life span are numerous. AP reports it was found by US troops in 03, This is ignored
6) Iraq and GWB agree 2011 is it, This is ignored
7) tits over, they have a republic in place, they have less violence than we do, we closed bases in Saudi and Kuwait that will save us billions each year there closed

That's it
what in gods name is so wrong with that?
its all I have ever said

If you dont like that, i cannot help that. I think the troops made this a huge success. Saddam could have prevented all of this


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

get it?


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



"You Libs" 

Most people define Liberal or Conservative based on someone's political views. Whackjobs?Definition: Anyone disagreeing with a whackjob on any issue. 

Whining & Crying? You mean you? Well sweetheart, you're welcome to stop whining and crying any time you like. 
I dealt in facts. You dodged them and tried changing the subject. Period. Lt's try direct questions and see if you keep dodging.
Do you claim the Iraq War didn't cost trillions?
Do you claim the Iraqis didn't refuse to spend their own money on rebuilding their country? That they didn't demand we continue spending our money and Bush caved? 
Do you claim they didn't refuse to give us a shot _right from the beginning_ at their oil contracts (from the rigs WE paid to rebuild) and gave them to China, our economic rival?
That their government has been deemed among the top 5 most corrupt in the  world?
That they are not publicly aligning themselves with Iran and Syria?

Oops! Crap! Facts! Issues! Time for you to dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run... 

Time for us to laugh when you do


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



some where in your attack I missed your facts
the Iraq war and its real cost will never be known. No-one took the time to take off the monies we were spending in Saudi and Kuwait in military bases that are now closed as well as the funding the UN was getting dealing with that mess. 1 trillion is probably close

The rest of that crap means nothing to me, it has no bearing on what we went to war for
I refuse to be dragged into a debate that I could care less about
and yes your no different than every whining liberal I have ever been around, I have never met a true conservative who took this stuff personal
Adults find a place to agree to dis agree
I found it with this a long time ago


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK is not an adult.

This is not a place to agree to disagree.

JRK is flatly wrong.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 12, 2011)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



So you come here claiming the Iraq war was a success. I dispute that and give me reasons why. You change the subject and then start whining. Then you are presented with facts showing that anything that might be defined as a "Success" in IRaq, has ended up in the opposite.
And as I predicted, you dodge the facts and now declare you will Cut & Run from them. Yeah. That was hard to predict. 
Just like this is easily predicted: You will dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run from this line of questioning:

Why did we go to war in Iraq?
1. Were we told by Bush that we were under "Positive and imminent threat of WMD's from Saddam"?
2. Were we told "We knowexactly where the WMD's are. They are North and West of Takrit."
3. Did the U.N. Object when we said we wanted to invade? (So much for it being about our great respect for the U.N. then...)
4. Was it only AFTER the resolution to invade was passed and troops were underway, that we were told that it was now about our "love of the Iraqi people" (LOL!) and (UnConstitutional) desire to police the world and invade a country that had not first attacked us?

You may now do as predicted... 
Really, this is just too easy.


----------



## JRK (Oct 12, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



whining?
This has over 2000 responses in this thread bud, you just jumped in
get to reading is all i can tell you
1) no, we were told by Hans Blix that Saddam had 6500 munitions, Anthrax and nerve gas after 10 years of him supposedly be ridding the world of his mess. this took place on 1-27-2003, 4 months after congress gave GWB the power to enforce these very resolutions
Dude it was not our place in life to fix this mess, it was Saddam's. And when Blix sated that in public after 10 years of BS he was not the only one who thought this was the right thing to do then and some even now
The UN was suppose to have prevented this, there more at fault here than any-one. We had attacked Iraq before 2003, had you forgot that? Saddam had the time and the place to do the right thing
Chew on this
notice the last one
*President 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 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." S 
- 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 weap ons 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

Now you add that 3 days later Blix comes out and says what he said?
and your trying to convince of what? that all of this was GWB war?
Your not even on the radar 
Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

I see the war crime lie has been brought back up

From the UN
1-27-2003
the event why we invaded
Update 27 January 2003
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.  It might still exist.  Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
 In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.  In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision.  They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.  Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002.  Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems.  These items may well be for proscribed purposes.  That is yet to be determined.  What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq&#8217;s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.  As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included.  The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq&#8217;s Foreign Minister stated that &#8220;all imported quantities of growth media were declared&#8221;.  This is not evidence.  I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.


The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

congress approves the use of force to enforce UN regs
It really is that simple
BTW there where WMDs found, this event how ever it was not what we were told was there, made it 100% legal
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

blah blah blah

WMDs as described by the admin were not found, the chemistry sets not withstanding that JRK believes are WMDs.

We had no legal jurisdiction to enforce UN resolutions.

End of story.


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> WMDs as described by the admin were not found, the chemistry sets not withstanding that JRK believes are WMDs.
> 
> ...


Jake you are 100% wrong
Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins,
*The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order 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.*


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

The munitions found by no means met the munitions the UN, CIA and many others said to exist, but the bottom line was they were all suppose to be gone
Saddam Hussein was dictated after attacking Kuwait to dis arm 100% as provided in the Un resolutions, he failed to do so
Jake your wrong and you know it


----------



## georgephillip (May 19, 2012)

So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?

"The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: *'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.*'[1][2] 

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received *240 communications* in connection with the *invasion of Iraq in March 2003* which alleged that *various war crimes had been committed*."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?
> 
> "The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: *'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.*'[1][2]
> 
> ...



The world court?
The world court?
are you kidding me?
What part of the US constitution do you not understand?
there has never been a more legal war
The world court has 0 jurisdiction and it is none of there damn business, and I do not recall any-one facing any charges from any court
I allege that you Liberals need to stop with the lying about these events and if your upset about it then Saddam and The UN is who you should be mad at


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...





> The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the fruit) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the poisonous tree). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence.
> 
> Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine | Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer



With regard to Iraq, therefore, the outcome of the war is irrelevant (the outcome being the fruit). The war came about illegally, when the Bush Administration withheld facts and lied as to its intent that would have otherwise compelled Congress not to authorize the war. 

American jurisprudence rejects the notion of the ends justifies the means. A criminal enterprise can never be justified regardless the success of its outcome.


----------



## Moonglow (May 19, 2012)

It was really worth a trillion dollars.


----------



## georgephillip (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?
> ...


*Wars of Aggression are always illegal and evil.*

"The *International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg* held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

    '*essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression*...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[54]

"Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following WWII, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council."

*Maybe you conservatives should stop waging war with other peoples' money and blood?*

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Of course you have proof that, wait
what about the UN?
1-27-2003?
who do we blame for this?
I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the Council before.  This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders.  It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War.  I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. * Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs*.  *The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.*

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.  *This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.*

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


Biological weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.  Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.  It might still exist.  Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraqs submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.  As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included.  T*he absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraqs Foreign Minister stated that all imported quantities of growth media were declared.  This is not evidence.  I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
*

Missiles
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.  *In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision.  *They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.  Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002.  Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Now who do you blame for this?
*AND WHAT DID GWB HIDE THAT THE UN HERE ON 1-27-2003 DID NOT*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> The munitions found by no means met the munitions the UN, CIA and many others said to exist, but the bottom line was they were all suppose to be gone  Saddam Hussein was dictated after attacking Kuwait to dis arm 100% as provided in the Un resolutions, he failed to do so
> Jake your wrong and you know it


 You finally changed you tune, JRKdoosh, and it only took a year or so.  And we illegally invaded Iraq without an UN mandate or grievous cause.  The UN resolutions mean nothing because we were not empowered under them.  It was not a just war.  The ends do not justify the means.  However, my little doosh, you finally are changing on the WMDs.  Bout time.


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> It was really worth a trillion dollars.



I would have supported a 1% sales tax on everything including food to have funded the wars


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

Who cares, JRK?  The war was a failure, it helped to create a far less safe world in which Obama has had to clean up the neo-cons' mistakes.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> *Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?*
> 
> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> ...


The primary complainants would more-than-likely be *The DICK; Cheney*, and the various *oil-interests* who'd assumed they were gonna walk-away with *any-and-all* oil-operations, in *Iraq*....the reason we'd gone there, in the *first*-place (*Lil' Dumbya* wanted to have at least *ONE* successful oil-deal, during his life). 

The oil-boys had assumed....*ANY* foreign-contracts (for oil, from *Iraq*) were with the *government* of *Iraq*. If *Saddam Hussein* was overthrown....there *WAS* no *Iraq*-government, anymore.....so, *all oil-contracts* with *Iraq* were null-and-*void!!!* (*i.e.* _To the victor go the spoils_.)

Eventually, *Iraq's new-government* *SKUNKED* *Cheney & Co.*, and decided to *auction-off* all future oil-contracts/operations....and, *Cheney & Co.* got a mere *FRACTION* of the oil-business that *American*-servicemen/women died for.​


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Who cares, JRK?  The war was a failure, it helped to create a far less safe world in which Obama has had to clean up the neo-cons' mistakes.



Jake that is an opinion and BHO did nothing in Iraq
Peace was negotiated in 2008 and was followed to the letter
Saddam Hussein was an out-law, he is gone
After 9-11 we had NO CHOICE
Iraq has a democratic govt in which women hold office
The US is not funding the UN to baby sit Saddam
The 800 metric tons of Yellow cake is gone and no dirty bombs can be built with it

I HATE WAR, BUT I HATE LIARS AS BAD


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares, JRK?  The war was a failure, it helped to create a far less safe world in which Obama has had to clean up the neo-cons' mistakes.
> ...


Yeah....sure.....*that's* what was _happening_.









> *How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons**?*​





> *U.S. Aided Iraq vs. Iran*http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36397.html





> *March 25, 2004*
> 
> *Selective Amnesia*​
> "This is regarding the Deroy Murdock column * but if Iraqs dead could talk, theyd thank Bush (March 22).* *Selective amnesia* seems to be the hallmark of the *Bush administrations apologists* these days. Last May, it was the media that broke the news of *mass graves in Iraq*. Busy pursuing rumors of weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, U.S. authorities had neither the time nor the resources to secure the sites for proper forensic study. *Only later, when the fearful weapons failed to appear, did the tombs acquire political value.*
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 19, 2012)

Dumbfuck, we put the first Gulf War on hold, we had the right to restart it when it was clear Saddam was violating the terms of the ceasefire, he was supporting terrorists and he wouldn't allow proper WMD inspections in his country without playing games with inspectors. 

When he invaded Kuwait, he lost his right to keep Iraq...idiot.



JakeStarkey said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> WMDs as described by the admin were not found, the chemistry sets not withstanding that JRK believes are WMDs.
> 
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

shaman
Your not taken seriously
 really do not understand what your doing here, but that is all on you
Good luck with that, you may need it


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

thanks
it was that simple
Saddam could have saved millions of lives, the war(s) where about him and nothing else


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

Jake the US constitution is why we had jurisdiction
I am not sure why you Liberals think that congress and the President does not have the authority to defend this country from enemies both local and foreign
Gulf war 1 had mandates that directly effected this country both financially and harm
Saddam had 10 years to get it right, after 9-11 it was over


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbfuck, we put the first Gulf War on hold, we had the right to restart it when it was clear Saddam was violating the terms of the ceasefire, he was supporting terrorists and he wouldn't allow proper WMD inspections in his country without playing games with inspectors.



We invaded, lumpenhead, because of WMDs.  They weren't there.  We  had no right under international law to do what we did.  The UN would not give us the authorization, so we took it illegally.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

JRK said:


> Jake the US constitution is why we had jurisdiction
> I am not sure why you Liberals think that congress and the President does not have the authority to defend this country from enemies both local and foreign
> Gulf war 1 had mandates that directly effected this country both financially and harm
> Saddam had 10 years to get it right, after 9-11 it was over



I am certainly not a liberal and no neo-con is a patriot.  Our country had no legal standing for doing what it did.  The war broke the nation's morale and contributed to the failure of the economy.

Your narrative will not be the one told in our public ed's history books.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 19, 2012)

Dumbass, the US Air Force never stopped flying over Iraq enforcing the No Fly zone while the UN was supposed to provide food aid for oil and inspecting his WMD program.

Instead Saddam was stealing money from the food program scam and he wasn't allowing WMD inspections until he was given ample time to hide things. 

In addition we outlined at the UN his support of LH and Hamas with suicide payoffs, so after 9/11 we weren't going tolerate some middle east dictator openly support islamic terrorists. 

What fucking world do you live in to miss all this shit? You must live in some hole to be ignorant of this information.



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, we put the first Gulf War on hold, we had the right to restart it when it was clear Saddam was violating the terms of the ceasefire, he was supporting terrorists and he wouldn't allow proper WMD inspections in his country without playing games with inspectors.
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, we put the first Gulf War on hold, we had the right to restart it when it was clear Saddam was violating the terms of the ceasefire, he was supporting terrorists and he wouldn't allow proper WMD inspections in his country without playing games with inspectors.
> ...



On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins,
Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

e 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

(Excerpt) Read more at defenselink.mil ...

what else Jake?


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

here jake
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 &#8211; The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass, the US Air Force never stopped flying over Iraq enforcing the No Fly zone while the UN was supposed to provide food aid for oil and inspecting his WMD program.
> 
> Instead Saddam was stealing money from the food program scam and he wasn't allowing WMD inspections until he was given ample time to hide things.
> 
> ...



The most spun event in the history of this country
it did more to elect BHO than any-thing along with a bunch of people loaning a bunch of people money could not pay back
Saddam also had 800 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq, that was not in reality secure until 2008


----------



## Lakhota (May 19, 2012)

> Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.



U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Jake the US constitution is why we had jurisdiction
> ...



We had a deficit in 2007 of 163 billion
in 2010 we had a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and had added 1 trillion dollars in spending Jake
(from 2007, the last GOP budget)
29 Democrats in the senate voted to enforce the UN regulations in 2002
On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, an*d 77-23 in favor in the Sena*te. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins,

No-one wanted a war Jake
And as far as the morale of this country? there is no data to support your claim
Your opinion is yours, does not mean it matters as far as the truth


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 19, 2012)

Uh, why did the IAEA keep sending inspectors around Iraq up until OIF??? Of course, Saddam only played games with them to make himself look innocent. 



Lakhota said:


> > Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com


----------



## Lakhota (May 19, 2012)

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com


----------



## JRK (May 19, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
> 
> U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com




depends on the story you choose to read
Bottom line is there was 550 metric tons of it there and for some reason the liberal media never mentioned this and it took until 08 to get that crap out
Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission | Fox News

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program  a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium  reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake"  the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment  was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What is now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles (19 kilometers) south of Baghdad  using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

"Benjamin B. Ferencz (a chief US prosecutor at German military trials following WWII) wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, *George W. Bush, War Criminal?*: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[56] 

"Ferencz elaborated as follows: '*a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity*, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'[57] '

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. *It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council.* They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK continues to lie.  The WMDs described by the bushies did not exist.  If they were, the bushies would have screamed it from the roof tops.

Jrk, I am going to keep posting this until you respond to it honestly.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



A.  Reality.  The cost of a war of choice in terms of blood and treasure.  

Q.  What beneftis have we as a people derived from the Iraq war/occupation?


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



That question cannot ever be answered. 
We will never know how much money was saved from removing troops from Saudi, Kuwait and Financing the UNs failure to control Saddam, as far as blood?
There is another UN known, It was a huge part of the reason to do what we did. Saddam was a loose cannon.
He proved that 100s of different ways

I hate war, I hate the 100s of Saddams in this world who in time give us no choice but to act


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



JRK continues to lie. The WMDs described by the bushies did not exist. If they were, the bushies would have screamed it from the roof tops.

Jrk, I am going to keep posting this until you respond to it honestly.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> "Benjamin B. Ferencz (a chief US prosecutor at German military trials following WWII) wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, *George W. Bush, War Criminal?*: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[56]
> 
> "Ferencz elaborated as follows: '*a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity*, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'[57] '
> 
> ...



Then I re butte that this was an action to complete the first gulf war peace treaty that Saddam had failed within compliance of
In fact that is the exact reason for those events
The UN failed in assuring those agreements were adhered too


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Do you realize that everyone is ignoring Jake?
I am putting you back on ignore
Jake the UN claimed there was (and accurately so) there was 1000s of WMDs missing on Jan 27 th 2003
That is being honest Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> Do you realize that everyone is ignoring Jake? I am putting you back on ignore  Jake the UN claimed there was (and accurately so) there was 1000s of WMDs missing on Jan 27 th 2003  That is being honest Jake



You're not.  You continue to lie. The WMDs described by the bushies did not exist. If they were, the bushies would have screamed it from the roof tops.

Jrk, I am going to keep posting this until you respond to it honestly.

Oh, you put me on ignore a dozen times, yet you always answer me.  Why?  Because you can't fool us, though you keep trying.

Why would you do this to the patriots of America?  What enemy of America are you serving?


----------



## JoeB131 (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Just steps 2 and 3, apparently.


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that everyone is ignoring Jake? I am putting you back on ignore  Jake the UN claimed there was (and accurately so) there was 1000s of WMDs missing on Jan 27 th 2003  That is being honest Jake
> ...



*You're the epitome of jingoism*

*Context of 'January 28, 2004: David Kay Tells Congress Iraq Survey Group Found No Evidence of WMD in Iraq, Says Hussein Deceived Own Generals*

Context of 'January 28, 2004: David Kay Tells Congress Iraq Survey Group Found No Evidence of WMD in Iraq, Says Hussein Deceived Own Generals'

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJCPcYCupY]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld - THE ULTIMATE CLIP (Edited) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Benjamin B. Ferencz (a chief US prosecutor at German military trials following WWII) wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, *George W. Bush, War Criminal?*: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[56]
> ...


Kindly point out any "material breach" of UN Resolution 686 committed by Saddam that justified the murder, maiming, displacement and incarceration of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians. You really need to worry more about war crimes committed by your own government and less about Saddam's.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"T*hese are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,*" Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

The item that has become the biggest lie in all of this is the US having anything to do with 1 Iraqi death
Saddam had 11 years to do the right thing
After the invasion those we fought were the same terrorist that were part of and or supported 9-11

Blair elaborates: 

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

*Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003.* The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 

Even though Blair says it l*ater emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war.* Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Now there is the truth
GWB and the US military killed no-one
Saddam/OBL and Zarqawi did the killing, our troops just where there stop stop the killing and those who were responsible for it


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

ERGO said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



There is 2 sides to that story
1) there was over 500 munitions found that meet the criteria of a WMD

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"*These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee*.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
2) They were not in condition to be used nor where they the same thing the UN   and the CIA led us to believe was there

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq...Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being ... *UN inspectors believe there to be large quantities of weapons materials still unaccounted for. ..*. On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a ... The United States claimed that "sources" had told them that Saddam ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Yeah, the classified intel reports were fabricated by the US military. 

Oh, you can't counter what I said can you, dumbfuck?

We "restarted" the war with Iraq to enforce UN resolutions against Saddam and to stop him from paying islamic suicide bombers. We kinda got sick and tired of islamic terrorists attacking us and our allies after...9/11. Have you heard of this 9/11? 



JakeStarkey said:


> JRK continues to lie.  The WMDs described by the bushies did not exist.  If they were, the bushies would have screamed it from the roof tops.
> 
> Jrk, I am going to keep posting this until you respond to it honestly.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Mental ward patients like you with internet access is bad.

FYI idiot, Saddam started the entire war by invading Kuwait back in the 90s. We just didn't show up in Iraq when Bush JR got into the White House. 

Now get back on your meds, asswipe.



georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
1) Saddam was given an ultimatum by the UN Gulf war 1 that he ignored
2) 9-11
3) Saddam was removed from power as a result of non compliance of UN regulations
4) 2002, Al Qeada makes a presence in Iraq
5) in 2006 Zarqawi is killed
6) 2011 the war is over


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
1) Saddam was given an ultimatum by the UN Gulf war 1 that he ignored, *which gave us no legal authorization to invade.*
2) 9-11.  *No Iraqis or $$$ were involved.*
3) Saddam was removed from power as a result of non compliance of UN regulations.  *We had no legal authorization to enforce UN regulations,*
4) 2002, Al Qeada makes a presence in Iraq.  *Iraqi enemies were present in the US.,*
5) in 2006 Zarqawi is killed. * Ex post facto.  Doesn't matter.*
6) 2011 the war is over.  *Iraq and Iran are becoming allies and by 2016 will present an united front against the US.*


----------



## Buford (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
> 1) Saddam was given an ultimatum by the UN Gulf war 1 that he ignored, *which gave us no legal authorization to invade.*
> 2) 9-11.  *No Iraqis or $$$ were involved.*
> 3) Saddam was removed from power as a result of non compliance of UN regulations.  *We had no legal authorization to enforce UN regulations,*
> ...



What do you mean by "no legal authorization to invade"?  The House and Senate voted to invade.  That makes it "legal".


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Only under U.S. law.  Nazi Germany did the same thing, and a lot of their leaders were hung for war crimes.  Humanity has a long member and it won't matter if 20, 30, 40, 50 years go by and they get the opportunity to arrest, confine, try, and sentence American war criminals, particularly the torturers.  Why do you think so many American honchos from the war don't travel to Western Europe and parts of the Middle East.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Jake your on ignore
dis agreeing is one thing
calling me a liar is another
The facts are as simple as I can make them
Saddam ignores UN mandate that was a term of ending Gulf war 1 and not removing him then
9-11
Al Qaeda goes back to Iraq, 2002
Saddam continues to ignore UN regulations
35 countries invade (some later) 3/2003
Saddam is captured
Saddam is hanged by his own people
Al Qaeda's leader (Zarqawi) is blown to bits
2008 peace treaty is signed
2011 were gone, Al Qaeda is gone for the most part, Iraq has free elections as Saddam and his henchmen is gone, Yellow cake is gone, WMDs are gone,


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Buford said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
> ...



Jake thinks that the US constitution means nothing and that the UN (which is in NY and is funded for the most part by the US) runs this country I guess

35 countries were part of this coalition, not just the US
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq


----------



## Mac1958 (May 20, 2012)

.

Iraq war costs, so far:


American military deaths in Iraq: Approximately 4,500
American soldiers wounded: Approximately 33,000
American soldiers permanently mentally/emotionally damaged: Unknown thousands
American military families destroyed or damaged: Unknown thousands
Cost of war, in dollars: Approximately $807 billion

And what have we received for these absolutely horrific costs?


Saddam is dead.  Since his death, the balance of power in the Middle East has dramatically shifted towards Iran


Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  Oh.  Wait.  Check that, no fucking WMD.


We're stuck trying to nation-build, and we know damn well that the bad guys will return the minute our troop levels are low enough, even if that means decades.  Just as in Afghanistan.

It's absolutely stunning to see that anyone is still trying to spin this disaster into something positive.  Some people are very brave with the lives, limbs, minds, families and dollars of others.

God damn.

.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Quit posting on drugs.

Good luck to a European country that kidnaps a former US POTUS, VPOTUS, SECDEC, SECSTATE, etc. 

That would be an act of war, dumbfuck.



JakeStarkey said:


> Only under U.S. law.  Nazi Germany did the same thing, and a lot of their leaders were hung for war crimes.  Humanity has a long member and it won't matter if 20, 30, 40, 50 years go by and they get the opportunity to arrest, confine, try, and sentence American war criminals, particularly the torturers.  Why do you think so many American honchos from the war don't travel to Western Europe and parts of the Middle East.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Another idiot with no fucking clue.

1) WMDs were found in Iraq....the rest were probably shipped to "Syria" before the war.
2) Iran has been causing trouble in the middle east before the war, dumbfuck.
3) Iraq/Saddam is no longer a threat to the Kurds, Israel, and our GCC friends. 



Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Iraq war costs, so far:
> 
> ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



We do know how much was lost (thus far).  Your argument is specious at best; why suppose invading and occupying Iraq was requisite for removing troops from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?  Why suppose it was our duty to dispose Saddam (a Goldwater conservative would never have engaged in such a folly).  And, why Saddam - he was at least contained, and Iraq was a viable economy with electricity and water before our occupation?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Another idiot with no fucking clue.
> 
> 1) WMDs were found in Iraq....the rest were probably shipped to "Syria" before the war.
> 2) Iran has been causing trouble in the middle east before the war, dumbfuck.
> ...




Incredible.

Okay.


.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Uh dumbfuck, we have troops in Kuwait and we're constantly training with troops in Saudi Arabia. 

Saddam was funding terrorists attacking our ally, Israel.

Saddam never came clean about his WMDs, in fact most likely moved them to Syria with the help of Russia. We found what was leftover. 

The Goldwater Republicans were more focused on a Euro/Asia threat while they ignored the threats in the middle east which are more dangerous given the impact on oil and their support of international terrorism. Reagan failed to address the problem of Iran, even ignored their attack on us in Beruit.



Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Iraq war costs, so far:
> 
> ...



Using the lords name in vain has no place here
your opinion of the events in Iraq mean nothing to many of us, there just opinions

Al Qaeda killed most of the people in Iraq, that would be the same bunch that was behind 9-11
Iraq was on our side from the start for the most part

Yes those brave kids volunteered to be there, unlike you they believed they were doing the right thing
Spin?
Saddam ignoring UN regs was not spin
Al Qaeda being in Iraq before we invaded is not spin
Blair elaborates: 

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 

Even though Blair says it later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

WMDs were found, over 500 of them that were suppose to have been destroyed

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The UN made the same claims that the CIA and others made
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq...Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being ... UN inspectors believe there to be large quantities of weapons materials still unaccounted for. ... On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a ... The United States claimed that "sources" had told them that Saddam ...

35 countries supported this, this was not a stand alone event
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq

The only spin here is you and please show some restraint in your language
Class comes with acting like an adult and adults do not go around conducting them selves as such


----------



## Mac1958 (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> Using the lords name in vain has no place here




This from a guy who calls people "dumbfuck."

You can't make this stuff up.


.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Yep, that is all you have based on your msnbc talking points. 

The Iraq war was a huge success until we made the mistake of preventing Baath party members from the new Iraq. They turned to the international terrorists for a counterinsurgency once they were left out of the dance. 

Once we started bringing them back into parts of the Govt, the counterinsurgency died. 

The explosions in Iraq today are caused by the Iranian terrorist groups and a few Al Qaeda scum still pissed about peace in the country. 



Mac1958 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Another idiot with no fucking clue.
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Using the lords name in vain has no place here
> ...



you have me confused with someone else
your claim is 100% wrong
In fact I usually put people on ignore such as Starcrftzzz for conducting them selves as such
NOT ME BUD so I would appreciate if you retract that


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Mental ward patients like you with internet access is bad.
> 
> FYI idiot, Saddam started the entire war by invading Kuwait back in the 90s. We just didn't show up in Iraq when Bush JR got into the White House.
> 
> ...


*Here's another war crime that happened "back in the 90s."*

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of *more than 46,900 children* died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931&#8211;6.)"

*How many US children did Saddam kill, Stupid?*

MMS: Error


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Quit posting on drugs. Good luck to a European country that kidnaps a former US POTUS, VPOTUS, SECDEC, SECSTATE, etc. That would be an act of war, dumbfuck.


  Yup, and many years down the road we may not be able to stand down the French or the Germans or the Italians or whomever if they snatch one of our old guys or ladies for a war crimes trial.  Times change, GB, and bullies often get their come uppance.  Saddam did, JRK did, and dumbfuck Doosh Bezerk just did.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Dumbass....

1) Your stats about who died or was injured in Iraq is 99% of the time inflated, bogus numbers. You scum just threw around huge numbers during the invasion piece.
2) Anyone that died in Iraq while Saddam and his sons stole from the Oil for Food program, died at the hands of Saddam and his sons. 
3) Where are your stats on the number of people killed and tortured by Saddam and his sons?

So in your tiny mind, the average Iraqi was better off living in fear of Saddam and his sons instead of today with the democratic govt trying to build their country to a peaceful middle east country with a lot of wealth to be shared. 



georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Mental ward patients like you with internet access is bad.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You need to see a doctor about your STDs now causing brain disease much like Hitler. I believe Syphilis made him go mad, that might be it for you after taking it up the ass in gay clubs. 



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Quit posting on drugs. Good luck to a European country that kidnaps a former US POTUS, VPOTUS, SECDEC, SECSTATE, etc. That would be an act of war, dumbfuck.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass....
> 
> 1) Your stats about who died or was injured in Iraq is 99% of the time inflated, bogus numbers. You scum just threw around huge numbers during the invasion piece.
> 2) Anyone that died in Iraq while Saddam and his sons stole from the Oil for Food program, died at the hands of Saddam and his sons.
> ...



1. The stats are fairly accurate, and your doosh reaction only reinforrces them.
2.  Silly statement.
3.  Not relevant.

Considering in the same amount of years in comparison, about two times the number of Iraqis died during the American war as under Saddam, you are doosh dumb fuck when you talk.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

I'm the one calling you dumbfuck, dumbfuck.



Mac1958 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Using the lords name in vain has no place here
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> You need to see a doctor about your STDs now causing brain disease much like Hitler. I believe Syphilis made him go mad, that might be it for you after taking it up the ass in gay clubs.



dumb fuck doosh bezerk is sounding like his hero, Hitler.  Here's a hankie to wipe the spittle from your face, dumbfuck.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Mental ward patients like you with internet access is bad.
> ...



not sure who your calling stupid
Saddam choose to invade Kuwait
Saddam choose to ignore the will of the world
Saddam choose to build palaces and gas his own people
Saddam choose to use his resources not to help, but to harm

In fact you have given probably the best reason to have removed him and we probably should have done this in 91


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Nope, I am the one calling you dumb fuck, doosh dumb fuck.



> I'm the one calling you dumbfuck, dumbfuck.



We have not had such dumb fuck doosh entertainment since the first days of bigrebnc, JoeB, and JRK.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

So asswipe...

A country starts a war and then gets sanctions for invading a smaller neighbor...and some of the aggressor nation's citizens suffer from the sanctions...that is our fault? 

When I was a leader of my group in SERE school and they were beating this female in my group because we wouldn't sign the papers for being "war criminals," the stupid guard blamed me for her beating. I told him that they were running the camp thus were responsible for her beating and our beatings. You are as dumb as that guard. 

Oh, your answers to #2 and #3 show you are nothing but scum.



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass....
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Dumbfuck, when I use the word dumbfuck on you...I make a point about it to prove you are a dumbfuck.

Again you just using the word dumbfuck shows you're a dumbfuck. 



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > You need to see a doctor about your STDs now causing brain disease much like Hitler. I believe Syphilis made him go mad, that might be it for you after taking it up the ass in gay clubs.
> ...


----------



## pvsi. (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> *2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE*
> ...


Your ass needs to be expulled to Iraq, and I don't mean the Baghdads fortified green zone either (the only place where in 8 years Bush co. had guts to make unnanounced visits


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Oooohhhhh, and asswipe fuck bragging about SERE.



> A country starts a war and then gets sanctions for invading a smaller neighbor...and some of the aggressor nation's citizens suffer from the sanctions...that is our fault?  When I was a leader of my group in SERE school and they were beating this female in my group because we wouldn't sign the papers for being "war criminals," the stupid guard blamed me for her beating. I told him that they were running the camp thus were responsible for her beating and our beatings. You are as dumb as that guard.



dumb fuck doosh bezerk is beginning to melt down.,


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Al Qaeda is who did most of the killing
The Iraqi troops fought with us just about from the start

Saddam was the problem, not the 35 countries that invaded Iraq and removed him from power


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
> 1) Saddam was given an ultimatum by the UN Gulf war 1 that he ignored
> 2) 9-11
> 3) Saddam was removed from power as a result of non compliance of UN regulations
> ...


*Which material breach of UN Resolution 686 did Saddam violate?*

Where was al Qaeda located inside Iraq in 2002? Possibly under the protection of the northern no-fly zone?

Why don't you worry more about the war crimes committed by the greatest purveyor of violence on the face of this planet today?


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

pvsi.net said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



I tried to get hired on with KBR
I was to old to join
I hate war
I hate people like Saddam and Zarqawi, it was there war, not ours. Do you remember 9-11?
Those people went into Iraq and Pakistan after 9-11
we went after them and in 2006 we killed there Al Qaeda leader after he went there before we invaded in 2002


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Learn how to spell teenage psychopath.



pvsi.net said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

BTW
*There was 35 countries involved in the removal of Saddam and then fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

*JRK: Al Qaeda is who did most of the killing*

You are a doosh, JRK, that is a flat out lie.  The Sunnis and Shi'ites were killing each other and us, then the Sunni were killing Al-Quada.

We killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

You are a loon.,


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You didn't do the real school, but of course the meaning of the story went over your head because you are a.....



JakeStarkey said:


> Oooohhhhh, and asswipe fuck bragging about SERE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Ahhhh, the idiot speaks again on something it doesn't know much about.

The Sunnis were supporting the terrorists until they realized the terrorists were blowing them up too.

Also, our change in strategy in accepting the Sunni back into power helped them put down their guns and quit funding the outside terrorist groups. 

Of course, you thought Iraq was better off with Saddam's thugs rounding up people off the street compared to what they have today.



JakeStarkey said:


> *JRK: Al Qaeda is who did most of the killing*
> 
> You are a doosh, JRK, that is a flat out lie.  The Sunnis and Shi'ites were killing each other and us, then the Sunni were killing Al-Quada.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> You didn't do the real school, but of course the meaning of the story went over your head because you are a.....



Doosh Bezerk is melting down.  SERE is a tough school, but getting through that does not relieve one from doosh and dumb fuck qualities, which you evidence in superb uniquely-u style.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Nutjobs like you keep the nutjob websites running. 

Simpletons like you think Iraq of the 80s was the same Iraq that invaded Kuwait and later got invaded by a coalition in 2003.

Hint dumbfuck.....Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90s which changed the entire relationship and end of this story.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

_Doosh Bezerk:  The Sunnis were supporting the terrorists until they realized the terrorists were blowing them up too.  Also, our change in strategy in accepting the Sunni back into power helped them put down their guns and quit funding the outside terrorist groups.  Of course, you thought Iraq was better off with Saddam's thugs rounding up people off the street compared to what they have today. _

So?  Al-Q was not doing most of the killing was the point, and I was right.  SH was a hitler, as are the shi'ites and sunnis who are killing each other today.  You are not a very bright doosh.,


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You're like a cat and a laser pointer, easily distracted. 

The rest of us don't fall for your bullshit here. You can't argue your points so you go on these rants that are Syphilis induced. 



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't do the real school, but of course the meaning of the story went over your head because you are a.....
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

It amazes me that people make this about everything but what these events are really about
and GWB never lied
There were WMDs found in Iraq

But what is more important is was not GWB place to prove anything, it was Saddams
And
Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to us invading, mostly OBL's deputy, Zarqawi


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World
*American Use Of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time."
US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."
*
"I'm horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car."

The speaker is not some alarmist doom-sayer. He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, talking about the best-kept secret of this war: the fact that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world.

http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm

Please don't paste entire articles.
Please provide a link to the article.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGsSYEB0bA&feature=related]Beyond Treason: The True Story of Depleted Uranium - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

*doosh bezerk: You're like a cat and a laser pointer, easily distracted.*

None of us fall for you nonsense BS here.  You can't argue, you can't organize, you can't even be mean real well.

You remind us of Buffy Who Wanted To Be The Mean Girl at school at whom we all laughed.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Dumbass, there were zero sanctions against Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait to steal their wealth, rape their women and kill whoever got in their way. 

As for terrorists hiding under the No Fly Zone areas, the US military was there to enforce illegal aircraft in the air not worry about who was hiding in a hut below. Bill Clinton needed to direct bombing of specific targets on the ground. He was too scared to bomb UBL's camps in Afghanistan so hell would freeze over before he started randomly bombing some so-called terrorist camp in Iraq not aligned with Saddam at the time. 



georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > The media and democratic party can take the most simple of things and turn into pure spammed out spin
> ...


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> It amazes me that people make this about everything but what these events are really about
> and GWB never lied
> There were WMDs found in Iraq
> 
> ...



*YOU'RE DELUSIONAL!*


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You are a nutjob when you come here with these nutjob prepared rants. 

Posting 10,000 word rants by some nutjob website doesn't make it legitimate. You should be in Chicago crapping in the streets instead of rolling out website rant after another.



ERGO said:


> Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

*doosh bezerk: Dumbass, there were zero sanctions against Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait to steal their wealth, rape their women and kill whoever got in their way.  As for terrorists hiding under the No Fly Zone areas, the US military was there to enforce illegal aircraft in the air not worry about who was hiding in a hut below. Bill Clinton needed to direct bombing of specific targets on the ground. He was too scared to bomb UBL's camps in Afghanistan so hell would freeze over before he started randomly bombing some so-called terrorist camp in Iraq not aligned with Saddam at the time. *

None of us fall for you nonsense BS here. You can't argue, you can't organize, you can't even tell the story well.

We did not have the UN's authorization to enforce the resolutions by invading Iraq, doosh boy.

You remind us of Buffy Who Wanted To Be The Mean Girl at school at whom we all laughed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Posting 10,000 word rants by some nutjob website doesn't make it legitimate.



Doosh Bezerk dumb fuck can't make a post worthy in even a 100 words. He should be in chicago shoveling up everyone else's crap.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World
> *American Use Of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time."
> US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."
> *
> ...



Do you know what the term copyright infringement means?
You might want to pull out your point and link to the story in the future

Now what are you trying to say?
That we used dirty bombs?
That is a first
Well I am not sure why would you use a dirty bomb when your fighting people wearing bombs as well as using IEDs?
Whats your logic?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Doosh JRK spammed all the time without proper copyright.

STFU JRK.


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass....
> 
> 1) Your stats about who died or was injured in Iraq is 99% of the time inflated, bogus numbers. You scum just threw around huge numbers during the invasion piece.
> 2) Anyone that died in Iraq while Saddam and his sons stole from the Oil for Food program, died at the hands of Saddam and his sons.
> ...


In your nonexistent mind do the one in four Iraqis who have died, been displaced, maimed, or incarcerated since March 2003 deserve their fates? What threat did Saddam pose to the US? When did the UN Security Council authorize the US invasion of Iraq? If you can't answer either question, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime.

BTW, those "inflated, bogus numbers" come from the New England Journal of Medicine and most stem from heroic US bombs falling on water treatment plants that were located hundreds of miles from Kuwait.

*Maybe you can tell us which country is the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet today?*


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You're such a fucking idiot. 

I didn't say anything about UN authorization to invade Iraq, but your fucked up mind did. 

Go play in the street until a car hits you.



JakeStarkey said:


> *doosh bezerk: Dumbass, there were zero sanctions against Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait to steal their wealth, rape their women and kill whoever got in their way.  As for terrorists hiding under the No Fly Zone areas, the US military was there to enforce illegal aircraft in the air not worry about who was hiding in a hut below. Bill Clinton needed to direct bombing of specific targets on the ground. He was too scared to bomb UBL's camps in Afghanistan so hell would freeze over before he started randomly bombing some so-called terrorist camp in Iraq not aligned with Saddam at the time. *
> 
> None of us fall for you nonsense BS here. You can't argue, you can't organize, you can't even tell the story well.
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

You must work as one of those liberal radio show spam callers Monday-Friday before you do it on the weekend here. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Doosh JRK spammed all the time without proper copyright.
> 
> STFU JRK.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 20, 2012)

Idiot.....who put in motion the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

A) Saddam
B) Bush SR
C) Bush JR
D) Santa Claus

Come on idiot, you can do it. Hint, the US wasn't doing anything to Iraq before the attack on Kuwait.



georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass....
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass....
> ...



The approval to invade came in 1991 from the UN and then in 2003 from the US congress
Debating in whether or not the terms of surrender in 91 were met even has the UN in agreement there were not met

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq...Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being ..*. UN inspectors believe there to be large quantities of weapons materials still unaccounted for. ... On January 27, 2003, *
BTW that invasion included 35 countries
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq

1 in 4 huh?

raq Family Health Survey	151,000 violent deaths	March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey	601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths	March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey	1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict	March 2003 to August 2007
Associated Press	110,600 deaths	March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project	105,052 &#8212; 114,731 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 162,000 civilian and combatant deaths[1][2]	March 2003 to January 2012
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][3][4][5]	109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[6][7]	January 2004 to December 2009

Now how many of those did the coalition kill?
An how many did A Qaeda kill?
And how many did Saddam kill

Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] *murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead.* His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants &#8212; friends on friends, circles within circles &#8212; making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

You Liberals amaze me. You attack the coalition on freeing Iraq, removing Saddam, ending his weapons program for ever and killing is own people for ever
You say nothing in support of the coalition that remove him and killed the very people that conducted 9-11 in Iraq, Al Qaeda
Most all casualties in Iraq came from the few Saddam loyalist and Al Qaeda loyalist that entered Iraq prior to our invasion


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



MAC1958 posted the number of Americans KIA; we know the limeys suffered some  but tell us how many from the other 34 nations suffered combat deaths?  And include how much aide we gave those nations who sent non combat support to bolster GWB's claim of broad support?


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

The surrender of Saddam in 91 was contingent of Saddam adhering to terms of his surrender
He lied
The UN failed in enforcing same
35 countries enforced them post 9-11 and when Al Qaeda returned to Iraq trying to escape Afghanistan
The UN gave there approval in 91, there was no need to approve it again, besides it is not there place to decide what was best for us
35 other countries agreed as well as most of the Iraqi people. they hung Saddam for a reason


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



That aide came prior to Iraq also
No one has denied that I am aware of
Also those deaths came mostly from Saddam loyalist and Al Qaeda in Iraq (pre invasion)


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass, there were zero sanctions against Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait to steal their wealth, rape their women and kill whoever got in their way.
> 
> As for terrorists hiding under the No Fly Zone areas, the US military was there to enforce illegal aircraft in the air not worry about who was hiding in a hut below. Bill Clinton needed to direct bombing of specific targets on the ground. He was too scared to bomb UBL's camps in Afghanistan so hell would freeze over before he started randomly bombing some so-called terrorist camp in Iraq not aligned with Saddam at the time.
> 
> ...


"Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was a popular name for the Iraqi division of the international Salafi jihadi militant organization al-Qaeda. *It was recognized as a part of the greater Iraqi insurgency.*

"*The group was founded in 2003 as a reaction to the US led Coalition Iraq war*, and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004."

*Which country has been the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet since the end of WWII?*

al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

ERGO said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > It amazes me that people make this about everything but what these events are really about
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War
Why would you say that?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 &#8211; T*he 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, *the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

and as far as the UN, there where stating the same and as far as we know they were all telling the truth
United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq...Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being ... UN inspectors believe there to be large quantities of weapons materials still unaccounted for. ... On January 27, 2003,...

Saddam buried some of his air force, so why would munitions be different?
Al Asad Airfield
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-asad.htmSep 7, 2011 &#8211; The coalition found scores of fighter aircraft, mostly Soviet-era MiGs but ... Some were buried, others were parked in date palm tree groves or ...
Us Teams Seeking Weapons Find Iraqi Warplanes Buried In Desert .
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=20030801...At least one Cold War-era mig-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the ... Various officials differed in opinion as to whether the buried aircraft could ... of mass destruction for which coalition troops have been searching for months, "but ...
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass, there were zero sanctions against Iraq until Saddam decided to invade Kuwait to steal their wealth, rape their women and kill whoever got in their way.
> ...



Of course it was
*there was strong intelligence that al Qaeda were allowed into Iraq by Saddam in mid-2002 (with severe consequences later). *

Blair elaborates: 

There is an interesting sidebar to this. *It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, *had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Your spin, British PM facts
take your choice
I am being serious


----------



## candycorn (May 20, 2012)

WMDs were not found in Iraq.  That was the truth last year, that's the truth this year, that will be the truth next year.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

candycorn said:


> WMDs were not found in Iraq.  That was the truth last year, that's the truth this year, that will be the truth next year.



CC this evidence was presented to congress in 2006
By no means did we find what the UN and others had information from Saddam stating other wise, but these where found
No matter there condition they were not suppose to have existed as well as there payload was still dangerous
for the record there where WMDs found in Iraq
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
*The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.*
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Idiot.....who put in motion the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
> 
> A) Saddam
> B) Bush SR
> ...


*You "forgot" the Dick.*

"Cheney and Schwarzkopf oversaw planning for what would become a full-scale US military operation. According to General Colin Powell, Cheney 'had become a glutton for information, with an appetite we could barely satisfy. He spent hours in the National Military Command Center peppering my staff with questions.'"

*How much money did Dick the Draft Dodger make from that appetite?*

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot.....who put in motion the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
> ...



So preparing people to defend this country now is defined as glutton?
what money did he make?
and draft dodger?

Any way the war was about Al Qaeda and Saddam, not D Cheney


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



*Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War*
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006 

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, *Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi,* the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress[/B] (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors,* false information* on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued. 
[*B]
The newly declassified intelligence repor*t provided administration critics with fresh ammunition, less than two months before midterm elections and in the middle of President Bush's campaign to refocus the public's attention away from Iraq and toward the threat of terrorism. Senior Senate Democrats immediately seized on the findings, using some of their strongest language yet to say *the president continues to willfully and falsely connect Hussein to al-Qaeda. *

As recently as Aug. 21, 2006 Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. *But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report. 

*"The president is still distorting. He's still making statements which are false," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence committee member. 

Read rest at:Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

[/B]


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

ERGO said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Were did Zarqawi get killed?
So Levin is your source huh?
In an election that has proved to be a disaster
from 2007 thru 2010 what a wreck huh?

There is nothing in that link that is anything more than opinions
We found WMDs, out dated and with the exception of throwing them, worth less

Only problem was they were suppose to not exist

In addition 
It will be hard to dispute ones wife huh?
Even though Blair says it later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s.* After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Now you have the mans wife vs Levin
Okay


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > WMDs were not found in Iraq.  That was the truth last year, that's the truth this year, that will be the truth next year.
> ...



You're using a *defense.gov* news article as your source, "WMD Criteria" ?, to prove the government wasn't lying about WMD's? And what is your definition of circular logic/reasoning? Nope, no BIAS here.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



LOL! Bankrupt America: Done
Create the largest Shia bloc in history: Done
Create the most corrupt government in the world: Done

Yeah um, big success there buddy.


----------



## ERGO (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



You're very delusional and you're grasping at straws to try and prove something that has been refuted with irrefutable evidence a long time ago, that the Bush Jr. Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on a pack of LIES.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doosh JRK spammed all the time without proper copyright.STFU JRK.





GoneBezerk said:


> You must work as one of those liberal radio show spam callers Monday-Friday before you do it on the weekend here.


  Doosh GB Haven't Got A Clue is adding his worthless dribble.  STFU doosh boy


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

ERGO said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I guess CBS would be better? This event was done to prove that congress was correct in supporting the use of force in October in 2002 to enforce UN regulations
 Army Col. John Chu told the *House Armed Services Committee.*

he agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. *"We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s*

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

The spin is mind boggling
Congress agreed with GWB in 02 and was proven right on Saddam not complying with UN regs, also it was proven later that Al Qaeda had set up a presence with the intent to do harm in Iraq BEFORE we invaded as came out post mid term elections

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard
Even though Blair says it &#8220;later emerged&#8221; that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi&#8217;s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm,* some of the intelligence that backed up Powell&#8217;s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad*. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden&#8217;s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and *his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*

It is like stating that one has a flat tire from a 16 penny nail instead of the 60 penny that was made before inspection of the tire
Saddam was to have removed/destroyed all munitions, not some
he by definition Saddam was not in compliance with terms of his surrender in 1991 much less 2002
GWB stated that if you harbor terrorist, we will come after you. Colin Powell stated that Al Qaeda was in Iraq in Feb 2002, that was as we see after the lies in the 06 mid terms correct

what else is there?
these events were sad. People, 100s of thousands of people have had there lives changed because of those events
Saddam and OBL is why
not GWB nor any-one else


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...


"When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments.[16][17] In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, '*I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.*'

Cheney's a classic rich conservative getting rich from other peoples' money and blood.
The war was about rich people getting richer from convincing poor people to kill other poor people.
Conservatives have been supporting those crimes for centuries.

Why don't you answer the question, *which country has been the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet since 1945?*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_life_and_education


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

all neo-cons know that the US arms industry has generated the greatest violence for the last sixty plus years throughout the globe, supported by righty media of the Political Chick and Crusader Frank types.  The American neo-cons had an awful lot of help and competition from Soviet and Asian communism.


----------



## MikeK (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> ...


If you are capable of rational thought try to view our unprovoked invasion of Iraq from this perspective:  To deliberately kill just one innocent baby, unless one's very survival imminently depends on it, is unforgiveably savage and cannot be justified.

That is just _one._  How many innocent little babies and tots were blown to bits or incinerated in their cribs by those bright flashes we saw on tv during our "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad -- which was _perpetrated_ for no good reason.  Do you have any idea how many?  I don't.  But a safe guess is it was hundreds if not thousands, because we literally demolished that city.  

Forget the innocent mothers and fathers who had no hostility toward America and wanted nothing more than to lead peaceful lives and raise their familes. Focus your thoughts on just the babies.  What we watched, as if it were a Coney Island fireworks display, was an event which rivals the wholly unnecessary and cold-bloodedly inhuman cruelties of the Third Reich.  

This is not to say we Americans are cold-blooded and murderous by nature.  But the fact that the vast majority of us have become so completely disconnected from monumental realities which occur outside our individual spheres of existence has enabled such monstrous personalities as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to position us alongside the Nazis and the Huns in the pages of world history.  The simple fact is we had absolutely no justifiable reason to invade Iraq, deliberately kill so many babies and reduce a civilized nation to rubble.  The fact that the ruler of that nation was a bad guy is no excuse.  

It seems all some right-wing propagandist has to do is tell you Iraq has been "stabilized" and you don't give such a preposterous notion a second thought.  The fact is what the Bush regime maneuvered us into doing to Iraq has transformed America from the most respected and admired nation in the world into the most feared and despised.  And I wonder what your thoughts are about that.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The US started which of these wars?
If you have an issue with the most powerful country in this world helping those who cannot help themselves then leave
Korea
Vietnam (which I will admit was a mistake)
Iraq
Afghanistan

We did not start those wars
Iraq had Al Qaeda 
they invaded Kuwait and was allowed to remain Iraq with Saddam only by doing those things they had agreed to, they lied and after 9-11 there lying was no longer tolerated

You got a problem with the way this country conducts its self, move to france and good luck

For the record I hate all violence
N Korea invaded
N Vietnam Invaded
OBL killed
Saddam killed and invaded 

We started none of them so your claim is 100% false that we are resp for any violence
no invasions
no wars
no 9-11, no violence
no USS Cole
No Violence
No Kuwait
No Violence
No WMDs
No Violence


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

MikeK said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Then by your own account Saddam should have been removed along time prior to 2003
Number of Victims

*According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. *Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could not agree with you more. Any violence sucks
But you liberals have been lied to so much (not your fault) that genocide you for some reason blame us and ignore the real terror

Your numbers in Iraq were those by Saddam loyalist and Al Qaeda, not the US
No Saddam
No OBL
No Zarqawi

none of this happens


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

I am amazed that the liberal mind in this country has been lied to so much that they would compare GWB with Hitler and ignore the real terrorist, Saddam Hussein

2 million people slaughtered 
and entire region in turmoil
He invaded his neighbor based on oil drilling that he claimed was done by drilling side ways
He gassed 100s of thousands of his own people

OBL and Al Qaeda declared war on us and some of there top commanders ended up in this same country

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?


----------



## Staidhup (May 20, 2012)

Years ago the world was ruled by some who felt the sacrifice of justice for appeasement would result in peace, over 10 million died as a result. If no one will stand for justice and freedom then how many more are destined to die at the hands of tyranny?


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> I am amazed that the liberal mind in this country has been lied to so much that they would compare GWB with Hitler
> 
> Because Conservatives NEVER compare Obama to Hitler, right?
> 
> ...



I would have had us not invade Iraq. There are dozens of countries all over the world with horrible leaders. As Jefferson said "It is not our role to be the police of the world but rather to promote democracy through example."
Based on what your logic (or rather, the reasoning given to you), there are a dozen countries in Africa, half a dozen in Europe, a few  in South America, several in the ME and of course, N. Korea and China that the US should invade. Insanity.
If you were in charge, we'd be pretty busy! 
But you've been told what to believe and you just do. 

We didn't HAVE to invade Iraq just like we don't HAVE to invade China.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



We were not provoked by Iraq, and we had no UN authorization to enforce UN resolutions.

We launched an illegal war in violation of international standards.

We have paid already in so many ways for our actions, and we will keep reaping the dark harvest of its bad results.

All the whining by the JRKs changes not one iota or jot of the judgement against us.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 20, 2012)

.

Our keyboard generals are very brave, indeed.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Staidhup said:


> Years ago the world was ruled by some who felt the sacrifice of justice for appeasement would result in peace, over 10 million died as a result. If no one will stand for justice and freedom then how many more are destined to die at the hands of tyranny?



False analogy, Staidhup, move along.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Staidhup said:


> Years ago the world was ruled by some who felt the sacrifice of justice for appeasement would result in peace, over 10 million died as a result. If no one will stand for justice and freedom then how many more are destined to die at the hands of tyranny?



My god to have stated that GWB was Hitler and ignore the facts of what Saddam was is mind boggling
He was a mad man
And what we did in the 80s when Iran and Iraq was at war is not clear, but what is clear is that both countries were (Iran still is) human right killing machines
Most all people harmed in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were done by those we are trying to stop
dammit what is wrong with these people?

I will never forgive the democratic party for feeding this horseshit to good young minds for a vote
100s of thousands of kids volunteered to fight these battles for people who could not fight them for them selves and to defend us, and in return they get people quoting Carl Levin and his BS 
GWB was handed the biggest mess ever handed to any president. What was we suppose to do libs?
turning a blind eye in 1930s killed 10s of millions
Saddam was different?
OBL
Zarqawi?
you think those maniacs are the same as GWB?
WHATS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK and Staidup are engaged in a the ploy of false analogy.

Neither Hussein or Bush were Hitler.  Iraq was no threat to the US.

The neo-con lies stop here.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK and Staidup are engaged in a the ploy of false analogy.
> 
> Neither Hussein or Bush were Hitler.  Iraq was no threat to the US.
> 
> The neo-con lies stop here.





No spin can wash the stink of this war away.


.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > I am amazed that the liberal mind in this country has been lied to so much that they would compare GWB with Hitler
> ...



That is your opinon, so what was we suppose to do with Al Qaeda moving into Iraq?
They were doing it before we invaded
So what were we suppose to do with that?

Even though Blair says it &#8220;la*ter emerged&#8221; that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002,* this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi&#8217;s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell&#8217;s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden&#8217;s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. *Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

That fact was missed and has never been repeated sense we invaded. It was as much of a reason to invade Iraq as was Saddam ignoring UN regulations, just because CBS did not report that, does not make it true or false

So what were we suppose to do? Ignore it and hope it went away?
That worked with Adolf and OBL in the late 90s, not!

look I hate violence as much as any-one, but I also hate the lies to get 1 vote the main stream media and the democratic party has put forth on these events

GWB was talking taxes, no child left behind and Medicare reform on 9-10-2001, not invading any-one

*AND NO I HAVE NEVER COMPARED BHO TO HITLER AND ANY-ONE WHO DOES HAS ISSUES NO MATTER THERE POLITICAL AFFILIATION*


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

Sense you brought up BHO
The one thing he has done a good job is continuing the war on terror, in fact his use of drones makes GWB look weak


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey:  JRK and Staidup are engaged in a the ploy of false analogy.  Neither Hussein or Bush were Hitler. Iraq was no threat to the US.  The neo-con lies stop here.

Mac1958: No spin can wash the stink of this war away.


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'm not saying there arent bad people out there or discussing GWB's political failures at the time of 9/11. I'm staying on point. We gained nothing from invading Iraq. Actually much less than that.


----------



## georgephillip (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


*So tell me WHEN Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan attacked the US?*

Then tell me which country has killed millions of innocent human beings on the opposite side of the planet since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re: Korea

Have you ever heard of "Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 &#8211; July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that *Korean independence was essential to world peace*, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (&#47805;&#50577;; &#22818;&#38525, the Chinese characters for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that *he is revered in both South and North Korea.*


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



How do you know we accomplished nothing by forcing the Iraqi regime to adhere to the terms of there surrender of 91?
We have no idea what Al Qaeda was doing in Iraq in 2002, we have no idea what would become of Iraq after 9-11.
We closed bases in Saudi Arabia
We closed bases in Kuwait
The funding of UN to "oversee" Iraqis lying ended

The very reason we went into Iraq was we had no idea what was going to happen, that was the very problem

To start with we did not invade
34 countries went in there in 2003 to enforce the terms of surrender Saddam agreed to in 1991
Secondly GWB made it very CLEAR you harbor terrorist, were coming after them. Zarqawi was run out of Afghanistan in 02 and he set up camp in iraq, we know that to be a fact now that has never been reported as it should have as it wasone of the main reasons we went there

Even though Blai*r says it &#8220;later emerged&#8221; that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002,* this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi&#8217;s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell&#8217;s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden&#8217;s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. *Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.


Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Your stating events that never occurred, no-one will ever know post 9-11 what was going to occur in Iraq with Al Qaeda there and Saddam backed into a corner. We could not have taken the chance as congress and GWB assessed it
Iraq today is stable and Al Qaeda is in dissary*


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



pardon my deleting your repeated post of the same old bs propaganda you bought into and stated the first time. I no more believe it, than you do all the facts to the contrary. 
The core of your argument is flawed on both fronts.
1. Saddam was a bad man and there were lots of bad people in his country too. So what? There are such conditions all over the world. This is not justification for invading the whole world - or iraq.

2. We didn't know what would happen so we invaded. We don't know what will happen in Pakistan. We know there are terrorists there now. We know the ISI and military are filled with Taliban and AQ Supporters. I don't want to invade Pakistan. Do you? If not, you argument falls apart.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

[B[/B]





IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



There repeated because there the truth that you keep ignoring
1991 Kuwait
Saddam surrenders
Saddam ignores terms
9-11-2001 we are attacked
Saddam is told times up
2002 Al Qaeda moves into Iraq
Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard
1-27-2003 the UN states Iraq has 6500 WMDs missing
Update 27 January 2003
www.un.org/depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: ... Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ..... Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6500 bombs. ... moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...oY2LDA&usg=AFQjCNFA_7qyt0RYFn-a9BGhdpGM_ftwCw

we found 500 of them
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Zarqawi is killed 2006, his replacement later
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lYCLDA&usg=AFQjCNGAWuDzPLHmYL0mZ9JQKUhQ61uHRw

you keep ignoring these facts as though they do not exist


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

To claim that we accomplished nothing by invading Iraq is like claiming if we did not rid the world of Hitler everything would have been okay

It is no different than stating if we did not drop the A-bomb that japan would have surrendered any-way 

It is no different than stating without en forcing the terms of surrender that Saddam agreed to as well as ignoring the fact that 2 top Al Qaeda personnel would have been okay as we did OBL late in BCs term 

That is an absolute unknown
No-one knew what Hitler was doing until we got there, after 9-11 no-one knew what was going to happen in Iraq


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



LOL! You're entertaining. And again, whether you choose to believe all that is up to you. You haven't posted "facts". For example, "Munitions Meet WMD Criteria" is a joke. But it supports what you want to believe so you'll read it and say to yourself "See, we actually found 500 WMD's!" 
So we'll never agree on what was fact. When I post PROOF that the CIA, NSA and the German Intel folks who were handling the guy who, for $10M told Bush what he wanted to hear, all told Bush that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, are you going to believe it? No. Because you don't want to.
So it comes down to the basis of our positions. You claim I ignore your "facts" but you ignore the flaws in your entire argument, as i've pointed them out.
Oh well, that happens a lot here.
Cheers,
FS


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > IndependntLogic said:
> ...



Munitions meeting criteria is not a joke, it is one of the very reasons we invaded
as was stated in that link and provided to congress the contents in the war heads could have been used as was used in japans sub way. Saddam was suppose to have destroyed those war heads
GWB? The UN made the claim on 1-23-2003 that there was 6500 munitions missing as well as 

Chemical weapons          

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.  Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised.  Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

*UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared.  Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.*

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised.  In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the Council before.  This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders.  It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War.  I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  *Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.*

*The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.  This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.*

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.  Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War.  This could be the case. * They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg.  The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for*. 

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.  During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation.  *Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
*
*I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
*
raq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.  Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.  It might still exist.  Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, *Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraqs submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.  As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included.  The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered*.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraqs Foreign Minister stated that all imported quantities of growth media were declared.  This is not evidence.*  I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.*


In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.  In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision.  They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.  Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002.  Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems.  These items may well be for proscribed purposes.  That is yet to be determined*.  What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq*
Update 27 January 2003

Explain to me why GWB needed any one to payoff anyone?
*THIS IS THE UN*
1-27-2003
*NOT THE CIA, NOT GWB*


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Conservative: Thanks for telling me the truth.
Liberal: America is evil and none of this matters.

That's what I got from reading the initial responses.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



it is amazing, did you read the UN link from 1-27-2003?
GWB lied?
The UN made a lot more claims than he did and BTW Al Qaeda was in Iraq beofe we invaded
My god these libs were LIED to by there leadership and they do not want to accept it


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I'll say that Iraq is a mixed bag. Good and bad came from it. If someone takes a non partisan look at it then that is what he'll see.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



To be honest we should have added a 1% sales on everything to fund both wars, that was my biggest issue (except food)
Iraq was a mess, a mess we had little choice in
When Saddam allowed Zarqawi to set up camp there, we had no choice after that and I think that was the motivating factor
Everyone I know that went there said they were fighting terrorist from other countries than Iraq for the most part. This is why as told to me by people who were there why it took so long, Iraq was ready to move on soon after Saddam went into hiding

The saddest thing is the truth, the real truth has been hidden so that the democratic party could re gain congress in 07
550 metric tons of yellow cake was shipped out after that election. The fact that Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre invasion came out to be a confirmed fact after that election

No-one wants war and i hate violence as much as any-one, but I hate lying just as bad and that is my motivation, to tell the story that never got told


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Taxes don't help the economy at a certain point. If anything, we should cut taxes and other domestic spending to pay for it. We also should've insisted on a stake in Iraq oil for freeing them. Freedom isn't free.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I agree 
I still think the country would have no issue paying 3.03 for a gallon of fuel instead of 3.00
1% of the GDP would have funded both wars 
I am all in for a smaller govt and lower taxes
GWB tax cuts allowed me to buy a new truck and a travel trailer, that is about the difference in my bring home from 01
That is job creation 

As far as the oil there? I have no issue with that. The Dems prevented even discussing that with Iraq
Also we had 33 other countries in that mix


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



First off; I think the war costs are overstated. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have been more efficient. Ther Persian Gulf War was basically paid for by other countries. With the Iraq war, we did not bring other countries to the table to pay for it like we should have.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

JRK said:


> To claim that we accomplished nothing by invading Iraq is like claiming if we did not rid the world of Hitler everything would have been okay  It is no different than stating if we did not drop the A-bomb that japan would have surrendered any-way



We accomplished very little of a positive nature, yes, that's correct, JRK.

The use of Hitler and the atomic bombs are false analogies.

The Rumsfeld unknown unknowns argument is as loony today for going to war as it was then.

The American neo-cons should be tried, convicted, and put against the wall.


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You have all troops removed from Saudi as well as the air force and there "stuff' (such as fighter jets)
UN financing was lowered
Bases in Kuwait closed
All volunteer military, gets paid in Iraq or in Germany (hazard pay increase)
Eat in Germany, or Iraq
cloths washed, same
living facilities, same

Get the point?

What the wars actually cost to me was never close to what is being reported never has made sense to me
The BS around KBR, my god troops eat and popo all over the world, they deserve the best we can give them

I tried to get on KBR in 03

It never made sense as to why the Dems made such a huge issue about this when the difference in all of the above for the troops in Iraq and all of the above for the troops in Germany cannot be more than 20 maybe 30% 
That also fits 150,000 at peak, not all of them


----------



## JRK (May 20, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Quit posting on drugs. Good luck to a European country that kidnaps a former US POTUS, VPOTUS, SECDEC, SECSTATE, etc. That would be an act of war, dumbfuck.
> ...



Bully Jake?
When did W and I get our uppance and what exactly does that mean?
What exactly Jake was the act of war?
You want to try an be part of the debate for once and get off of the name calling, accusation filled soap box?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 21, 2012)

JRK said:


> The munitions found by no means met the munitions the UN, CIA and many others said to exist, but the bottom line was they were all suppose to be gone
> Saddam Hussein was dictated after attacking Kuwait to dis arm 100% as provided in the Un resolutions, he failed to do so
> Jake your wrong and you know it



The thread that never dies live again.

Jr.  The remnants discovered did not make Iraq any type of a continuing threat to the United States.  That was condition 1set by the joint resolution.  The USA agreed to the weapons inspections according to SCR 1441 The USA breached its' obligation to the UNSC.  Enforcing UN resolutions was the 2nd criteria for using military force.

One more time.  The Iraq war was not only a failure but also a strategic blunder that will haunt us for generations.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 21, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass, the US Air Force never stopped flying over Iraq enforcing the No Fly zone while the UN was supposed to provide food aid for oil and inspecting his WMD program.
> 
> Instead Saddam was stealing money from the food program scam and he wasn't allowing WMD inspections until he was given ample time to hide things.
> 
> ...



The only weapon inspectors that were ever hampered were ones with Americans.  Iraq accused America of using the weapon inspector as spies to find intel on Iraq's defenses.

All Arab Nation donate to the Palestinian fund which pays death benefits for the Deaths of any Palestinian.  It is not limited to Suicide Boombers however, it does not exclude them either, or rather their families, from monetary benefits.

Way to soak up that propaganda......


----------



## BlindBoo (May 21, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Yeah, the classified intel reports were fabricated by the US military.
> 
> Oh, you can't counter what I said can you, dumbfuck?
> 
> ...



Sorry Buzzurker, the first gulf war was not restarted.  That was a UN action.  This was a US led invasion and occupation.  Iraq was not involved with the attack carried out on 9-11-2001 and was not a significant, or emminant threat to the United States.


----------



## Desperado (May 21, 2012)

How can anyone continue to claim it was a success?
It was an illegal pre-emptive war, fought for various reasons as time went on.
WMD's, Installing a stable democratic government and removing Saddam but most of all It was never about 9-11 or terrorism.  So we were lied to to get behind the war.  We had no right to fight.
We were told that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war.... another lie.
Not to mention an US embassy bigger than Vatican City.  One lie  after another, the government states they have pulled our troops out but what they don't mention is that they were just replace by contractors a nice euphemism for Mercenary.  Think we are really out of there any time soon?
We are deeply in debt  and many US Military  have been killed or wounded for nothing.
Seriously, there is not one positive thing that can be said for the war in Iraq,  the really sad thing is that the same is true for Afghanistan.
To which Obama just signed a treaty that say the US will continue our support till 2024.
A side note, Presidents should only be able sign treaties that are only good for the duration of their Presidency.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 21, 2012)

JRK and berzerker, the WMDs were never found as warned against by the bushies.

The chemistry sets found later or the inert decades old material were not WMDs.


----------



## jgarden (May 21, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Why should other countries be expected to pay for American mistakes, the Iraq War that was based entirely on "misinformation" (the threat of WMD) provided by the Bush Administration?


----------



## JRK (May 21, 2012)

Desperado said:


> How can anyone continue to claim it was a success?
> It was an illegal pre-emptive war, fought for various reasons as time went on.
> WMD's, Installing a stable democratic government and removing Saddam but most of all It was never about 9-11 or terrorism.  So we were lied to to get behind the war.  We had no right to fight.
> We were told that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war.... another lie.
> ...



Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. A*l Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*
Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion

We are deeply in debt because we spend more money than we bring in
Not because we had no choice but to defend this country after 9-11. It is a constitutional mandate

We spent 2.7 trillion in 2007 (the last GOP budget)
we spent 3.7 in 2011, BHO fist entire budget (he had 50% ownership of the 2009 budget)
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we had a deficit of 163 billion in 2007
we had a deficit of 1.3 trillion in 2010

I have never tried to claim either war was something any of us wanted
Saddam gave us no choice, BTW the UN, well read it for your self

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  *Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. * The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraqs Foreign Minister stated that all imported quantities of growth media were declared.  *This is not evidence.  I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.*
*What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.*


Read it, there is much more
this is not GWB, this is the UN
whats the difference?
1-27-2003


----------



## JRK (May 21, 2012)

jgarden said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...




This is from the UN, not GWB
_The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for._
read the link and do the right thing
Update 27 January 2003


----------



## JRK (May 21, 2012)

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
*
Edited, read entire article using the linkTOPICS*: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


----------



## georgephillip (May 21, 2012)

Why do you continually cite members of the US Congress when they are bribed by defense contractors to constantly support US wars of aggression from Korea to Kosovo?

Since 1945 which country has killed thousands of civilians on the opposite side of the planet from its homeland?

Or do consider the American Empire a success story?


----------



## JRK (May 21, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Why do you continually cite members of the US Congress when they are bribed by defense contractors to constantly support US wars of aggression from Korea to Kosovo?
> 
> Since 1945 which country has killed thousands of civilians on the opposite side of the planet from its homeland?
> 
> Or do consider the American Empire a success story?



I have not cited any-one about 1 bribe as I recall
Since 1945 as I recall we did not start any of those wars
And for the record I HATE violence

Korea was invaded from the north
Vietnam was a with 1000s being murdered
Saddam was a mad man
OBL same

Seems to me the problem was not the US, it was the evil people who started these conflicts
Vietnam? I mean what should have the world done there?
Korea? 

Saddam and OBL was a no brainer
Why is it you Liberals blame the American and never mention the on such as Saddam who killed millions?
According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And no even that was not the reason we took him out
The enforcement of the 1991 surrender treaty and to remove Al Qaeda who had moved some of OBL deputies that had began to set up operations in Iraq in 2002

Why is it the US is the bad in this? without the bad people such as Saddam there would have been no wars

Again, I HATE violence, but I hate lies just as bad


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 22, 2012)

JRK and berzerker, the WMDs were never found as warned against by the bushies.

The chemistry sets found later or the inert decades old material were not WMDs.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 22, 2012)

.

It sure must be nice to be able to look at the thousands and thousands of American dead, maimed and damaged and be able to convince yourself that a dead Saddam is worth all of that.  Spin in the extreme. Horrible.

.


----------



## LeftofLeft (May 22, 2012)

gekaap said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > to start with the war was Saddam's fault
> ...



If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?  When US forces could not find WMDs, the Bush haters seized the opportunity to create the myth that Bush lied. The truth is Bush used the same intelligence that Dems used before his Presidency and their basis to support the executive decision to take out Saddam.


----------



## zeke (May 22, 2012)

> If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?




Remember when Saddam was our friend? And when American companies sold Saddam the material he needed to make chemical weapons? Remember that? So he could use them on the Kurds.

Where were we when we absolutely knew he had them and was using them? We didn't invade then.
Why not?

No Bush used the EXCUSE of Saddam to go to war for a reason that you or I haven't been told.


----------



## Contumacious (May 22, 2012)

LeftofLeft said:


> If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?  When US forces could not find WMDs, the Bush haters seized the opportunity to create the myth that Bush lied.* The truth is Bush used the same intelligence that Dems used before his Presidency and their basis to support the executive decision to take out Saddam.*



No he didn't.

Bush INTENTIONALLY LIED THE COUNTRY INTO WAR.

USAF COLONEL KAREN KWIATKOWSKI








*The new Pentagon papers*

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 22, 2012)

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and remains a complete failure.  The facts are these:

The cost in blood and treasure was unnecessary and the on going cost to treat the wounded will last for decades;

The winner was Iran.

No nuclear weapons were found, and the basis for the invasion was that Iraq had a nuclear program active in 2003.  It did not.

The focus on Iraq took eyes off domestic and foreign policy critical issues.

Our economy suffered and we are paying the price of engaging in war, cutting taxes and ignoring our nations infrastructure for nearly a decade.


----------



## georgephillip (May 22, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you continually cite members of the US Congress when they are bribed by defense contractors to constantly support US wars of aggression from Korea to Kosovo?
> ...


*"Why is the US bad in this", let's start with Korea:*

"After the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, Japan acquired control over Korea, annexing it formally in 1910. In 1905 Japanese Prime Minister Katsura Tar? met secretly with U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft, producing the Taft-Katsura Agreement in which the U.S. recognized Japan&#8217;s interests in Korea.* What did the U.S. receive in return?*

    a. Japanese agreement to limit emigration to the U.S.

*b. Japanese recognition of U.S. colonial rule over the Philippines.*

    c. Japan&#8217;s renunciation to all claims to the Hawai&#8217;ian Islands.

Correct answer in bold.

Are you really naive enough to believe US foreign policy isn't dictated by corporate greed?

A Pop Quiz on Korea » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## BlindBoo (May 22, 2012)

LeftofLeft said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Except Congress didn't get this info.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddams inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. 

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD 

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - CIA - Salon.com


----------



## candycorn (May 22, 2012)

It's Tuesday.

As of Monday and about a zillion dollars and nine years later, there were no WMDs found in Iraq.

Next update on Wednesday...there will be no WMDs found in Iraq at that time either.  

Have a good day.


----------



## JRK (May 22, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> It sure must be nice to be able to look at the thousands and thousands of American dead, maimed and damaged and be able to convince yourself that a dead Saddam is worth all of that.  Spin in the extreme. Horrible.
> 
> .



Liberals just make stuff up as they go and never pay any attention to content
1) Al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002
2) The UN had information from Saddam after the 1st gulf war. That information still has 6000 munitions missing among other items. Munitions with Nerve gas in the war heads
3) Same with Anthrax

As a reminder, the 35 countries that went into Iraq to enforce those same UN regulations as well as removing Al Qaeda from the same killed very few. Al Qaeda and the hand full of Iraqis that did not want to have elections killed most of those who lost there lives, but 1.9 million fewer than Saddam had killed previously according to the NY times (the 2 million)
Let me also remind you that in the same time in the US we had about 150,000 murders.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdf
Many of them done much for the same reason as in Iraq
People hating another person


----------



## JRK (May 22, 2012)

candycorn said:


> It's Tuesday.
> 
> As of Monday and about a zillion dollars and nine years later, there were no WMDs found in Iraq.
> 
> ...



WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

CC lying about this is doing your rep no good
Son the truth is these munitions were to be destroyed prior to 1998, much less 2006
There are still 6000 missing according to the UN
Now if you have a link to rebutte these facts as presented to congress in 2006, have had it
congress has an issue with people lying to them
If not, do your self a favor, denial is not a river in Egypt
GWB stated we never found what we thought we would find, But no-one ever claimed Iraq was free of munitions they were not suppose to have

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


----------



## JRK (May 22, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I am going to make this as simple as I can
You have that opinion of this country, that is your right
But I have no idea why you live here

Naive?
Explain to me what we accomplished in Iraq?
Less oil on the market means higher prices

I have no idea what your claims on Japan are and frankly I do not care. If people sit in the WH and plan to overthrow any govt so Exxon can drill for oil there, well I am not sure what to say about that

look we really have nothing to discuss, your so far off of the reservation (and that is your right) I find no reason to debate it
Good luck, you need it bud


----------



## JRK (May 22, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and remains a complete failure.  The facts are these:
> 
> The cost in blood and treasure was unnecessary and the on going cost to treat the wounded will last for decades;
> 
> ...



The war(s) cost us about 200 billion a year
In 2010 we spent 3.7 trillion dollars
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2010 the entire Iraqi enforcement act cost us less than the failed stimulus
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News
AL Qaeda was in Iraq, prior to 2003
WMDs? no we never found what the intel said we would, but Saddam was to have destroyed all, not some
The UN made the claim that 6,500 munitions with nerve gas were still un accounted for on 1-27-2003

dis agreeing with enforcing the UN regs in Iraq and removing Al Qaeda from the same as well as 550 mertic tons of yellow cake, free elections and a Saddam free middle east (he killed millions and funded numerous terrorist groups) is your choice

But try and find legitimate reasons
The UE rate in 2007 was 5%


----------



## JRK (May 22, 2012)

LeftofLeft said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



There is little doubt in a thinking mans mind that Saddam had WMDs
on 9-11 he know he was through
he had 18 months to sell, bury, hide, do what ever he could to get rid of weapons the UN, not the US claimed he had


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2012)

JRK and berzerker, the WMDs were never found as warned against by the bushies.

The chemistry sets found later or the inert decades old material were not WMDs.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 23, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




So you agree, all the horror to our troops and their children and their families was "worth it".  Okay.

Thanks for proving my point.  Correct, yes or no?

And precisely what am I "making up"?

.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 23, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



1. Al Queda was in the USA in 2001.  Al Queda had a presence in the Northern section of Iraq.  You know in the free Kurdish area.  Where US plane were patrolling!

2.  You had your hat handed to you on this matter yet you keep plugging your SOS.  There was never any proof that there were 6000 missing munitions.  What that came from was that there was no verifiable proof of destruction of a small percent of the material Iraq had prior to the war.  Iraqi official said all was destroyed.  From the amount of missing chemicals the UN inspectors guessed that they could have made about 6000 munitions with it.

3  Antrax was sold to Iraq by a US firm with authorization from the State Department.

Al Queda fighters did not enter Iraq in great numbers even after the fall of the Iraq Government.  Most of the fighter associated with al Queda were homegrown.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2012)

JRK prefers his own fictional narrative.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 23, 2012)

.

And hey, if it weren't for Iraq, thousands of examples of this cool poster could never have happened!  How fortunate we are for the Iraq War!

And it's all worth it, right?


----------



## JRK (May 23, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I pointed out the things you made up

What point did you prove? That you have no issue making absurd accusations of your fellow Americans and not once make comment about the person that caused that mess? that horror for millions? Saddam Hussein
9-11-2001 we were minding our own business, same in 1991 (Kuwait)

Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, but he had allot to do with terror
Post 9-11 GWB made it clear to Saddam
Do you think we should have allowed Saddam and Al Qaeda to run a muck in Iraq?
What would have us do? 6 million Jews were murdered allowing terrorist to run a muck
over 3000 on 9-11 alone
you forget that?

Saddam was a terrorist
   Saddam Husseins Iraq had extensive ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, according to an official report published by the Pentagons Institute for Defense Analyses and released through the Joint Forces Command.

That report, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, came up with some startling revelations in its 59 pages:

 Saddams Iraq trained terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq and in 1999 sent 10 terrorist-training graduates to London to carry out attacks throughout Europe. (Page 1)

 Saddams Iraq stockpiled munitions (including explosives, missile launchers and silencer-equipped small arms) at its embassies in the Middle East, Asia and parts of Europe. (Pages 3-4)

 In September of 2001, Saddams Iraq sought out and compiled a list of 43 suicide-bomb volunteers in a Martyrdom Project. (Pages 7-8)

 The report contains language from a captured Iraqi document which references an attempted assassination of Danielle Mitterand, wife of French President Francois Mitterand, by car bomb. (Page 11)

 The reports authors describe Saddams Iraq as a long-standing supporter of international terrorism including several organizations designated as international terrorist organizations by the US State Department. (Page 13)

 Among the organizations that captured Iraqi documents indicate were supported by Saddams Iraq were: (Pages 13-15).

The Truth About Sadam and Terrorism - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## JRK (May 23, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> And hey, if it weren't for Iraq, thousands of examples of this cool poster could never have happened!  How fortunate we are for the Iraq War!
> 
> And it's all worth it, right?



Mac these people died to give you the right to have the freedom of speech
I would hate to wake yo tomorrow and have nothing more to be in this world than to be you
Sick? no that is not sick Mac
your trying to lower people to your level mac

Good bye Mac. I hope you never face what millions in this world who could not defend them selves face daily
That Marine you just made fun of has millions who gave it all for Mac, and that is the way you thanked every single one of those families

I will send this to every marine I know

Good Bye


----------



## JRK (May 23, 2012)

I began this thread because of the lies that were told about these event
The 100s of thousands of Men and Woman who without question volunteered so people like Mac could sit behind a key board and make jokes about there sacrifice

I have no issue with people who dis agreed with this event, I have a real serious issue with those who ignore what Saddam really was and why we really had no choice but to remove him from this earth
I have serious issue with those who blamed every-one but THE one who caused all of it
Saddam Hussein

Being against war started with him
Being against Violence began with him
Murdering millions and harboring the same who were responsible for 9-11 left this country and its 33 allies no choice 
without Al Qaeda, there are few deaths
without Saddam, there are none

God Bless all of them that made it so mac could be the person he thinks he is today
free to make a joke of the sacrifices made

Violence sucks, and with Gods will one day I pray there will be no more
I also pray that those like mac who think the freedoms we have are allowed to go live in places like Iraq when Saddam was torturing, raping, killing millions for nothing more than being a human being
Mac were all pulling for you


----------



## Mac1958 (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I wonder if you really believe that the soldiers who have been killed and so damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow did so to protect my freedom of speech.  I wonder if you have really, deep down, convinced yourself of that.  I suppose I can understand that endeavor, since anyone who feels somehow obligated to rationalize these horrific tragedies figures they need to come up with *something.
*  Or maybe you're just lying.  Delusion or dishonesty, it doesn't matter to me.

These brave soldiers suffered and died having to justify someone else's ideology.  _*And you think their deaths and their pain, and that of their families and their children, was worth it.*_  Stunning.

Look at that tragic photo again, JRK.  *Own it, because you support it.*  And play your sanctimonious, passive-aggressive games with someone else.  You're no victim, your feelings aren't hurt, you're just another ideologue trying to justify a tragic blunder.

Now, be sure to tell us how you "support the troops".  And while you're at it, don't forget to tell the child in the photo, too.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 24, 2012)

JRK keeps spamming, but the fact remains that WMDs were not found, as the admin described them; the leadership are war criminals; and the outsourcing of the war helped weaken the American economy.


----------



## idb (May 24, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK keeps spamming, but the fact remains that WMDs were not found, as the admin described them; the leadership are war criminals; and the outsourcing of the war helped weaken the American economy.



Quite right, it should have been insourced to aid the American economy


----------



## BlindBoo (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> I began this thread because of the lies that were told about these event
> The 100s of thousands of Men and Woman who without question volunteered so people like Mac could sit behind a key board and make jokes about there sacrifice
> 
> I have no issue with people who dis agreed with this event, I have a real serious issue with those who ignore what Saddam really was and why we really had no choice but to remove him from this earth
> ...



Saddam had no hand in the 9-11 attacks and did not support al Queda.  Nor were the attackers given safe haven in Iraq.  

Iraq was not a threat to our country.

Invading and occupying Iraq was this countries most serious strategic blunder to date.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

Colin Powell outlined the UN:

1) Saddam's refusal to follow UN inspections of his WMD program.
2) Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel.
3) Saddam's human rights violations inside Iraq.
4) Saddam's violations of the No Fly Zone.

So we went into Iraq based on based on those reasons in order to remove Saddam from power. Saddam is dead and Iraq is now in compliance with all of the above.


----------



## georgephillip (May 24, 2012)

"There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein. 

"Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries. 

"When Iraq came off that list in 1982, however, some $48 million of items such as data privacy devices, voice scramblers, communication and navigation equipment, electronic components, image intensifiers and pistols (to protect Saddam) were approved for sale during 1985-90.

"But it was through the purchase of $1.5 billion of American "dual-use items," having, sometimes arguably, both military and civilian functions, that Iraq obtained the bulk of it weapons of mass destruction in the late 80s. 'Duel-use items' are controlled and licensed by the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act of 1979. *This is where the real damage was done.*"

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## BlindBoo (May 24, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Colin Powell outlined the UN:
> 
> 1) Saddam's refusal to follow UN inspections of his WMD program.
> 2) Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel.
> ...



1.  SCR 1441 which the US agreed too was still in effect and proceeding to verify that there were no new WMD in Iraq.

2.  The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's support for militants in regional conflicts like the one in Palestine as a reason that the President could decide on. 

3.  The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's alleged human rights violations as a reason that the President could decide on. 

2.  The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's disregarding the No-Fly-Zone as a reason that the President could decide on. 

Nope none of the above fufill the requirements laid out in the Joint Resolution for the use of military force.  The invasdion and occupation was not only a failure but a huge blunder.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

Dumbfuck....Colin Powell outlined our reasons for why Saddam needed to be removed from power. 

The UN ignored their own resolutions against him, because scum like China, Russia and some Euro trash were making money under the table through the Oil for Food scam. Even the leader of the UN had his son involved in stealing money from the program.

To continually lie about what Colin Powell said was our US position shows you're nothing but a liberal that will never accept the truth.

Democraps authorized Bush to invade Iraq because they saw the same intel photos Powell and others saw where Saddam was moving/burying stuff around Iraq during the IAEA inspections. If a felon is moving and burying stuff in his backyard...the police typically see that as some criminal activity and get a warrant to see what he is doing. 

The same can be said about Saddam on an international level...but most likely he got his WMD to Syria with the help of Russia just in time before the invasion so that dumbfucks like you can claim Bush lied. 

Oh, are you doing to deny Saddam was funding suicide bombers attacking "the Jews," killing/torturing his own people, and violating the guidelines laid out from the Gulf War ceasefire regarding the No Fly Zone and WMD program? Come on dumbfuck.....deny it.



BlindBoo said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Colin Powell outlined the UN:
> ...


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

idb said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK keeps spamming, but the fact remains that WMDs were not found, as the admin described them; the leadership are war criminals; and the outsourcing of the war helped weaken the American economy.
> ...



Spamming?
exactly what is it I have spammed on a message board that its full intent is to debate political items such as these
500 munitions that met the criteria of WMDs as mandated by, well read it again


Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the w

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Now why is this spam?
Your claims come first
this information comes next

the only spamming here is not from me, I have stated over and over the lying about these events is what inspired me to write this thread

Was this what intelligence stated he had? NO
GWB admits that, I admit that
Are they part of the 6500 the UN claimed Saddam had and to this day are still missing 
Maybe
Where they WMDs? yes
Was Saddam suppose to have them? NO

Congress voted to remove Saddam to enforce UN regulations, by mandate this became a whole legal event when this event took place in the halls of congress, later when Al Qaeda was conformed to have been there before we invaded that was more conformation as to the correct vote by congress and approved by the president


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yes, the reasons given; "mushroom cloud", and WMD's "poised to strike". 4,486 American dead, and our now suspicious allies have their death tolls also. Tens of thousands of US troops maimed, all so a boy could play soldier. Over a trillion spent, and the right wingnuts wonder why the debt is high, now. Not a peep out the chickenhawks when Cheney brushed off debt with "deficits don't matter".


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> "There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.
> 
> "Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries.
> 
> ...



What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

It's pathetic seeing scum like Peach and other liberals here talk shit about the mission carried about by the US military in Iraq. The US military that in majority supported removing Saddam from power after Bush SR failed to do it in the 90s. 

So when you didn't serve a minute in the military and especially didn't do shit compared to me in helping remove Saddam from power.....shut the fuck up.


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

Peach said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



The Iraq war cost was less than the stimulus
The iraq war cost less than the amount BHO added to our yearly spending from 2007 to 2010
Saddam (his maniacal followers)and Al Qaeda killed those brave kids, no-one else
Weapons were poised to strike, not as the intel form the UN and others had claimed

Missiles did exist just prior to invading, this became the smoking gun
 The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in *these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.  This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.  Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War.  This could be the case.  They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg.  The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. *

Update 27 January 2003


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq. 

Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too. 

These same left-wing nuts picked Joe Lieberman for VP all the time knowing he would ditch the Democrap party later....because they are just that smart in their own minds. 



JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.
> ...


----------



## jillian (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1.destabilized middle east

2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists

3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.

4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.

5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.

seems you missed a few things.


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> It's pathetic seeing scum like Peach and other liberals here talk shit about the mission carried about by the US military in Iraq. The US military that in majority supported removing Saddam from power after Bush SR failed to do it in the 90s.
> 
> So when you didn't serve a minute in the military and especially didn't do shit compared to me in helping remove Saddam from power.....shut the fuck up.



No thanks, this is still America despite the best efforts of the rabids. And you post while serving? Hard to accept. I lived on, or near, more military bases than you have ever seen. Father, 20 years in; sister, a disabled Vet.  Sell your fairy tales elsewhere.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

The internet has given idiots like you the thought that you are somehow smart. 

Destablilzed the middle east? 

Islamic fundies now run Iraq? 

The revenues into the US Treasury increased from the Bush tax cuts. 

You are a shining example of birth control needs to be widespread.



jillian said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...


----------



## Dick Tuck (May 24, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Colin Powell outlined the UN:
> 
> 1) Saddam's refusal to follow UN inspections of his WMD program.



UN Inspectors, including Americans, stated that he was in substantial compliance.



> 2) Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel.



Saddam supported the families of suicide bomber, by giving them a grubstake, after the policy was to raze the homes of idiots.  Was there any due process?  Saddam was an assmonkey, but was it cause to go to war?



> 3) Saddam's human rights violations inside Iraq.



Saddam was a douchebag, but comes out a piker when we see the theocrats taking over.  Did Saddam whip women for not covering their hair?  Nah, he wanted a secular state, which is something that the right wing theocrates hate.



> 4) Saddam's violations of the No Fly Zone.



Perhaps, but it was a chump excuse to go Full Monty on them.  Being douchbags against their own people isn't a reason to commit hundreds of thousands of troops.

Nothing about the dildoist society of Iraq justified what we spent in lives and treasure.

What did the Bush administration tell us it was going to cost?


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

jillian said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there  who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

Dumbfuck.....my dad did 22 years in the military + my time. 

You = zero military time. 

You're the shitheads that act like you're in the military because your daddy was in the military. 

The US military says "Fuck You" regarding your comments about the Iraq war.



Peach said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > It's pathetic seeing scum like Peach and other liberals here talk shit about the mission carried about by the US military in Iraq. The US military that in majority supported removing Saddam from power after Bush SR failed to do it in the 90s.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

You're full of shit, as usual. 

We all know you liked Saddam helping the suicide bombers kill "Jews." 



Dick Tuck said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Colin Powell outlined the UN:
> ...


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

Curse, large font, and pretend all you wish; this remains one of the worst military mistakes in US history.


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

Dick Tuck said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Colin Powell outlined the UN:
> ...



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  *Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs*.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

T*he discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.  This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
*
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.  Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch o*f some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War.  This could be the case.  They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg.  The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. *

compliance?
compliance?
Thats form the UN 1-27-2003
Update 27 January 2003

The admin missed the cost because of Al Qaeda being there in much stronger that we thought
Iraqis stopped fighting long long before we agreed to a complete turn over


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 24, 2012)

So says the idiot that claimed ICBMs are going to be faded out as part of the nuclear TRIAD. 



Peach said:


> Curse, large font, and pretend all you wish; this remains one of the worst military mistakes in US history.


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

Peach said:


> Curse, large font, and pretend all you wish; this remains one of the worst military mistakes in US history.



mam I have never cussed you or for that matter any-one
Large font? no-one will read the truth, they keep re peating the same bad information they were given 
I hate Violence
Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
Saddam killed more than 2 million people According to the NY times
If you read the large font it should be clear to any-one Saddam was lying

War sux
violence sux
Saddam and Al Qaeda were the violent ones
Do you think our freedoms and safety comes without a price sometimes?
Sad at is it is, Saddam and Al Qaeda caused this mess, not the US, GWB, Bill Clinton, Dems, Repubs


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

Saddam was a secular MILITARY leader. No al Qaeda, no nukes, no WMD's. He was going down before Bush's war, and the US lost sight of terror because the boy's ego. A failure, par none. 

Cheney's biggest campaign:

Cheney: Saddam working on nuclear weapons - CNN

Rice's pitch:

RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don&#8217;t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.


The cheerleaders can stay in denial, but the Iraq disaster remains the same.


----------



## jillian (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at...  and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

Peach said:


> Saddam was a secular MILITARY leader. No al Qaeda, no nukes, no WMD's. He was going down before Bush's war, and the US lost sight of terror because the boy's ego. A failure, par none.
> 
> Cheney's biggest campaign:
> 
> ...



This will take care of Al Qaeda, it has been confirmed they were there before we invaded by multiple sources
Even though Blair says it later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

F*ormer CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*
Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

The UN link I have provided shows there were no were near ready for stopping

And as far as WMDS?
I have to post this link every new face, i wish you people would do some DD on this, after all our troops lost lives dealing with this mess


Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"Th*ese are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases*, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the w

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Noe what intel had reported by a long shot, but
1) Al qaeda was there in 02 and through the war (It is why lasted so long)
2) Saddam had weapons, some found just prior to invasion, some after

Now your opinion is fine, but your info is not. Cheerleading the death of innocent victims of Al Qaeda and Saddam?
Cheer leading troops being killed and maimed for life?
That is sick mam, i am only telling the truth, I hate it as much as anyone, but I hate the lies as much


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

jillian said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



One day the rabid right wants US troops to risk their lives because of UN resolutions, the next day they mean nothing; the UN is "commie".


----------



## JRK (May 24, 2012)

jillian said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Blix knew he had messed up
He tried to back track
No matter how he spun it after 1-27-2003, that info still was there and was as accurate as an after. The 6500 munitions were there at one time

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
They were there running from Afgahn, the country was out of control, saddam was lying and had no intent of doing the right thing

with respect, I dis agree


----------



## jillian (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



i don't think blix messed up.

and, ask yourself, even if those weapons were still in iraq... was it worth the cost in lives and treasure to go to Baghdad. 

saddam was talking smack... he had a big mouth and was an animal... but truth is, he was "our" animal..... until he wasn't.

i appreciate your responses, though. we can agree to disagree.


----------



## jillian (May 24, 2012)

Peach said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



i do see a bit of inconsistency there.


----------



## Peach (May 24, 2012)

JRK said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



They went to Pakistan. Now, I agree he was a monster, and  wish the US could have aided his downfall with loss of our troops' lives & the lives of those from other nations, including Iraq. Note also, a war being a failure in no way reflects on the troops; I support Vet benefits, 100%. The fault lies only with those who ordered them into combat.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2012)

jillian said:


> 1.destabilized middle east



Uh, I thought your little tin god said the Arab Spring was a GOOD THING?



> 2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists



See above.



> 3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.



If Iraq was the feeble country that you leftists claim, how could they keep Iran in check?

Also, isn't it nuclear, rather than conventional arms that are of concern from Iran? How exactly was Saddam influencing that? (I'll wait while you go to Common Dreams to find out what you think about this!)



> 4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.



ROFL

You've said some stupid things - Okay, most of what you post is stupid, but this is beyond the pale....

No dummy, the economic collapse was driven by mortgage backed securities that collapsed when the housing bubble burst. Bush spending at half the rate your Messiah® does had virtually nothing to do with it.



> 5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.
> 
> seems you missed a few things.



Seems you're messing a few IQ points....


----------



## BlindBoo (May 25, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbfuck....Colin Powell outlined our reasons for why Saddam needed to be removed from power.
> 
> *The UN* ignored their own resolutions against him, because scum like China, Russia and some Euro trash were making money under the table through the Oil for Food scam. Even the leader of the UN had his son involved in stealing money from the program.
> 
> ...



See SCR 1441

I never mentioned Colin Powel.  You did.

They should have all resigned in disgrace.

Nah they're on a ship steaming around the Indian Ocean.

Do you understand that Iraq supports the Palestinians in their regional conflict with Israel.  alaong with all other Arab nations Iraq contribute to the Palestinian fund which pays death benefits to Palestinians who are killed.  They do not exclude families of suicide bombers from this fund and those families make up a small % of those who recieve the money.

None of those things were reasons the president could decide to use military force on in the Joint resolution passed by Congress.

Major failure Buzzurkur, major.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 25, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.
> 
> Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too.
> 
> ...



Typical pseudo-con.  When history doesn't agree with your talking points, change history.  Iraq was a Soviets client state.  One of the reason Raygun had to get involved was becasue the Soviets boycotted Iraq after it invaded Iran.  Raygun helped supply them with Russian Spare parts.

President Bush(41) could have told Saddam that we would defend the Kingdom of Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them(we didn't), but he didn't.  His embassador told him we had no opinion on Arab/Arab violence.


----------



## georgephillip (May 25, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.
> ...


Why do you people defend those who profit from wars they are too cowardly to fight in?
Why do you people defend thiodiglycol?
Why do you people defend the murder, maiming, incarceration and displacement of millions of Iraqis at the hands of your own government since March of 2003?
Because Saddam was evil?
Clean your own stye first, and then name the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet.


----------



## georgephillip (May 25, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.
> 
> Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too.
> 
> ...


*You're too fucking stupid to be human.*

Do you think Reagan could find Halabja on a map? (He couldn't find WWII)
Do you think he might have owned some Alcolac stock?

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a *Ronald Reagan administration* policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. 

"Leaked portions of Iraq's 'Full, Final and Complete' disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that *thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas*, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. 

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*This country would be much more free if chicken shit like you were born dead.*


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.
> ...




That is sick
Dis agreeing with your fellow American does not mean you should conduct your self as such
RR had NOTHING to do with Kuwait
RR made no choices to kill, torture, rape millions
To put an entire region in turmoil
The US had 5,000 troops in Saudi, an event that gets lost in 9-11
The very reason OBL stated he masterminded 9-11. Why were they there?
To protect Saudi from Saddam
Basically, the very presence in Saudi Arabia of the 5,000 U.S. soldiers and fliers who are there to help protect them from Iraq, Iran and Saudi radicals.

For the Saudi royal family, American troops are both savior and embarrassment. Many in the fundamentalist Muslim population of that sprawling, oil-rich kingdom consider the presence of "foreign infidels" on sacred Saudi soil an insult to Islam. And they blame the Saudi royals, whom they accuse of corruption and immorality, for having brought the infidels in to begin with.

The U.S. troops keep an eagle eye on Iraq and Iran through daily surveillance flights, thus protecting both Saudi Arabia and our vital oil interests. The nervous Saudi rulers foot the bill, but they insist the troops not only keep their heads low, but stick them in the sand. There's little Saudi acknowledgment of the U.S. military presence sometimes even denial. American troops are urged to stay close to barracks, and they're forbidden to fly the American flag, even at their base.

Our Saudi Friends Let U.s. Troops Down . . . - New York Daily News

Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times


----------



## Mac1958 (May 26, 2012)

JRK said:


> Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times




*"...and getting rid of him was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran.    YES!  INDEED!  IT WAS WORTH IT."*

Come on, JRK, sign off on the above paragraph.  Say it.  Own it.  Love it.  It belongs to you.  You have to agree with the above if you're going to continue to defend this travesty.

Well?

.


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The murdering, maiming went n long before 3/2003
Saddam made choices that the world could no longer tolerate
There were 34 countries that invaded Iraq

The greatest purveyor of violence? Where do I start?
Hitler?
Saddam?

That would be 2 at the top of the list. they both killed millions of people for no other reason that they were people


----------



## Mac1958 (May 26, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times
> ...





Hey JRK, still waiting.  Go ahead, should be the easiest thing you do all day.  No spinning or diversion required.  "Yes".

Just say, "yes Mac, all of the above was worth it to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam."

Easy as pie.


.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 26, 2012)

The war in Iraq was successful up to the point where obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The war in Iraq was successful up to the point where obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.



So should I assume, then, that you agree with the following, up until Obama's term:
*
"...and getting rid of him was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran. YES! INDEED! IT WAS WORTH IT."*

Correct?

.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 26, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The war in Iraq was successful up to the point where obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
> ...




Boy, I'm really having one heckuva time getting anyone to admit the Iraq war was worth the costs listed above - *even those who continually defend it and who attack those who disagree with it.*

Weird.

I wonder why that is.

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

.


----------



## georgephillip (May 26, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...


*Your ignorance is sick.*

Ronald Reagan was responsible for removing Saddam's Iraq from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982, a month after he signed off on NSDD 114 which expanded US-Iraq relations generally.

"But it was Donald Rumsfeld&#8217;s trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports&#8211;some *$1.5 billion worth&#8211; including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology*, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above. According to a 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period&#8230;.not by our European allies, but by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names 

Ronald Reagan who didn't fight for his country in WWII made it possible for Saddam to amass the military firepower to invade Kuwait. 

The Reagan Doctrine included ethnic cleansing, the mass murder of civilians, and the funding of a mercenary army (the Contras) to which he claimed to belong. Death squads through out El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua celebrated Reagan's doctrine because it allowed them a free hand to kill innocent civilians on behalf of the rich parasites that Reagan devoted his life to serving.

1999/05/20


----------



## georgephillip (May 26, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


"April 4 is the anniversary of another significant but lesser known date in MLK&#8217;s life. It was on this date, in 1967, exactly one year before he was killed, King appeared at Riverside Church in New York City. He outlined why he opposed the Vietnam War. It would become known as his '*Beyond Vietnam*' address.

"Today we will listen to another speech of King&#8217;s against the Vietnam War given shortly after his Riverside Church address.

He would call the United States '*the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today*' and note that 'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is *approaching spiritual death.*'"

The United States Is "The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World Today": We Hear From Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Hitler and Saddam killed millions for the same reasons US presidents have killed millions.
It puts more money in the pockets of the rich parasites who fund their political campaigns.


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




RR had nothing to do with Saddam being Saddam
You keep talking of alleged events that have nothing to do with the killing, torture and rape of millions of innocent Iraqis 
You keep using a link that is nothing but a bunch of left wing hacks that have nothing to do with Kuwait
The UNs failure to control Saddam
9-11
Al Qaeda setting base up in Iraq BEFORE we invaded
1000s of WMDs still un accounted for, WMDs that according to Iraq and the UN existed, as well as those found prior to us invading as well as chemicals used in the making of mustard gas

You keep talking about events that have nothing to do with any of this
BTW, here is some others who had the same opinion as I did

[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America&#65533;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam&#65533;s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq&#65533;s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration&#65533;s policy towards Iraq, I don&#65533;t think there can be any question about Saddam&#65533;s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

RightWingNews.com :: Archives


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

Mac1958 you have joined the list of those who no longer deserve any consideration 
It takes allot to join that list
I will pray for you, I hope you find peace with what ever it is that has you treating our fallen war heroes the way you do and also pray no marines ever catch you doing the same
That is not a threat Mac, you need to realize that every action has a re action

Mine is to ignore you
Good luck on being you Mac
with that attitude I can only pray you remain lucky enough for those same Marines you did such an in justice to on this message board keep your freedoms and you safety in tact
That is exactly what they were doing when they gave it all
all of them Mac

Army
Navy
Air Force
KBR employees
Coast gaurd

all of them put it on the line for you Mac


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You know your about to join Mac
I have no issue with dis agreeing with the policies of the US govt, I have issues with some policies my self
I have no issue with dis agreeing with me
But to compare the US with Saddam or Hitler?
Your way out of line
There is no reality in the train of thought. That is so far far from reality I have nothing I can say to even debate that except you may be living in the wrong country with the way you feel about this one
Dude what ever your issue is, Bill Clinton did not cause it
Jimmy Carter
Obama
Bush 1 or 2


----------



## georgephillip (May 26, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


*How many US civilians did Saddam displace?*

"The American invasion of Iraq and the war to follow caused an *estimated four million Iraqis to flee their homes within four years*, the largest exodus since the mass migrations associated with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948."

Iraqi Refugees News - Breaking World Iraq News - The New York Times

How many US civilians did Saddam murder, maim, or incarcerate.
How many US women were raped by Saddam's Republicans?
Why do you continually evade the war crimes committed by your government?
Are you ashamed you didn't take part in their commission?


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

Claiming the US is in the business of starting wars so KBR can make 1-3% profit feeding the troops is nuts
he chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own&#8212;higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices&#8212;not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.
When you're a logistics company&#8212;and one working on a 1 percent profit margin&#8212;inefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.

Halliburton, the profitless war profiteer. - Slate Magazine

KBR provides the same service other companies do in places were there is no war, for the same or less profit
People need to look into this stuff before they just make this crap up or re peat lies


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



so your not an American?
Good Bye


----------



## gxnelson (May 26, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



1. I'll give you that. 
2. What stabilization? It's still utter chaos there with no official governement, or one that can control itself. 
3. See above. 

But alone the justification for going to war was enough to cause failure. Not to mention plunging the country into debt.


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

Saddam killed 2 million Iraqis
without Al Qaeda and Saddam loyalist, no-one in Iraq would have been dis placed
the 34 countries that went there to fight those Saddam loyalist, Al Qaeda and other radicals were not there to harm any-one as there ROE would not allow it

Most Iraqis dis placed were displaced in towns like Falluja, Towns were the radicals took over as bases to try and break the countries effort to become a democratic/republic and to kill as many soldiers from the 34 countries that supported the effort to remove Saddam


----------



## JRK (May 26, 2012)

gxnelson said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



That is an opinion
That if you feel that way, I respect it
Iraq has had numerous elections.
If you were to look at the number of murders and crooked politicians we have in this country every year from the outside would you see this country as stable?

according to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 percent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.[citat
Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is just the way it is printed, think about it


----------



## Mac1958 (May 27, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac1958 you have joined the list of those who no longer deserve any consideration
> It takes allot to join that list
> I will pray for you, I hope you find peace with what ever it is that has you treating our fallen war heroes the way you do and also pray no marines ever catch you doing the same
> That is not a threat Mac, you need to realize that every action has a re action
> ...




JRK, I can certainly understand why you have chosen to avoid my direct question, but I'll still post it one last time.  No, I'm not expecting an answer:

*Can you say the following was worth it?*

_*"Getting rid of Saddam was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran. YES! INDEED! IT WAS WORTH IT."*_

Keep hiding behind our brave troops, JRK.  Keep saying that you'll "pray for me". 

*And by all means, keep telling us how you "support our troops" while refusing to confirm the above paragraph.  Bull.  You're just another armchair general. *

You're also a coward, JRK, you won't even stand behind your own words.  Avoid me all you want.  And save your "prayers" for yourself.  You need 'em more than I do.

.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Mac
Mac
What part of ignore don't you get?
Marines are there thinking about you this morning, more tomorrow


----------



## Mac1958 (May 27, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac
> Mac
> What part of ignore don't you get?
> Marines are there thinking about you this morning, more tomorrow




I thought you were ignoring me.

Too funny.

Now, keep avoiding my direct question, and tell us how you "support the troops" you love to send into horrific situations.


.


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 27, 2012)

It's just time to ignore the idiots. They lie to themselves about the facts to believe Bush was the boogeyman. 

None of them served in the military and many of them hate the military, so fuck them.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 27, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> It's just time to ignore the idiots. They lie to themselves about the facts to believe Bush was the boogeyman.
> 
> None of them served in the military and many of them hate the military, so fuck them.





Hey, GoneBezerk, great to have you join in!  I have no doubt you'll be more than happy to answer this simple and direct question.  Please review the following statement:

_*"Getting rid of Saddam was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran." *_

Do you agree with this?  I assume you do, since you appear to be defending the Iraq War.  JRK doesn't seem willing to address this, he keeps avoiding.  Surely you're more willing to show some backbone.  Should be a simple call for ya.  Easy as pie.

Yes or no, GoneBezerk?  Do you agree with the above statement?

Yes or no?

.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> It's just time to ignore the idiots. They lie to themselves about the facts to believe Bush was the boogeyman.
> 
> None of them served in the military and many of them hate the military, so fuck them.



I have little issue with those who dos agree with policy
I have serious issue with the lies and down right dis respect some show who either do not live in this country nor have no respect for the sacrifice so few have given for so many

Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to invasion, that has been confirmed
Saddam had ignored the terms of surrender
That was confirmed 
The press reports the killing in Iraq as though it is only in Iraq yet we had 6 million violent crimes in the US last year
does it matter if those killings are for drugs or control of a country?
You could write the story as though Mexico and the drug lords are at war with the US, same with the inter city violence to control "turf"

When I was young in cities like in south Florida the police made the drug dealers stamp there manila envelopes with there turf "signa" to maintain peace. No different than the different than creating a new govt as we have accomplished in Iraq

There will allways be problems

It is no different than the battles we fight in our streets to maintain peace

The cops remove the bad guys as Al Qaeda, Saddam loyalist and other terror groups suck as chezks (Muslims) and Iranians and Pakistani's

Saddam was removed
Al Qaeda was demolished
A democratic govt has been formed
Weapons and the 550 metric tons of yellow cake is gone and secure in Canada, it took until 2008 
Rape, Torture as well as massive political executions are a thing of the past as Saddam had over seen
Bases were closed in Saudi and Kuwait, billions of dollars saved that would included the funding of the UNs failure to oversee Saddam's games
Iraq is re building and producing oil that without today fuel could be a unknown amount higher than it actually is

History will show this to be sad as well as a very controversial event that was the right thing to do

34 countries
I thank them all


----------



## Mac1958 (May 27, 2012)

.

Okay then!

To wrap this up, JRK and GoneBezerk feel that getting rid of Saddam was worth the following costs:

1. The lives of thousands of American troops
2. Thousands of American troops physically maimed forever
3. Thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever
4. Thousands of young American military families destroyed
5. Thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again
6. Hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have
7. The clear possibility that all of our so-called nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys inevitably return
8. The fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran

Wow, that's quite a list.  And they believe this was worth it.

And they top it off by claiming that anyone who thinks our brave young military should never have been thrown into this horror is "disrespecting" the troops.  

Thanks guys, just wanted to get all of that down.

.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Mac no one cares what you say
You lost all respect, even those who dis agree with the thread
go away please


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, you lost this particular argument months ago in other threads.

The Iraq war was a failure, a bust, the most horrible foreign policy failure in America's history.

Nothing you can do changes the fact that you are fail.


----------



## georgephillip (May 27, 2012)

For those who don't care about the millions of Iraqi innocents who've been murdered, maimed, incarcerated or displaced by the heroic US military, maybe you'll feel a brief sense of outrage over *"the largest theft of national funds in history"*?

"US defense officials still cannot say what happened to $US6.6 billion ($6.3 billion/Australian) of the cash. Federal auditors are now suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error.

"After the US-led invasion in March 2003, the Bush administration flooded Iraq with so much cash that a new unit of measurement was born.

"Pentagon officials determined that one giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $US2.4 billion in shrink-wrapped bricks of $US100 bills. *They sent an initial full planeload of cash followed by 20 other flights by May 2004 in a $US12 billion haul* that US officials believe to be the biggest ever international cash airlift.

"Stuart Bowen, special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, said the missing $US6.6 billion might be ''*the largest theft of funds in national history*'''. 

Missing Iraqi Billions 'Probably Stolen' | Common Dreams


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Jake you keep saying the same thing while you never dispute any thing that has been said
Saddam, gone
Al Qaeda, hurt bad, all most gone
Weapons, gone
Murdering Saddam style, gone
Torture Saddam style, gone
Saddam's torture, gone
Saddam keeping the region in turmoil, gone
Yellow cake, gone
Democratic govt, in

You call that failure?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 27, 2012)

JRK said:


> Jake you keep saying the same thing while you never dispute any thing that has been said
> Saddam, gone
> Al Qaeda, hurt bad, all most gone
> Weapons, gone
> ...





And all for the following costs:

1. The lives of thousands of American troops
2. Thousands of American troops physically maimed forever
3. Thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever
4. Thousands of young American military families destroyed
5. Thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again
6. Hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have
7. The clear possibility that all of our so-called nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys inevitably return
8. The fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran


You're very brave with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, and money of others, JRK.


.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> For those who don't care about the millions of Iraqi innocents who've been murdered, maimed, incarcerated or displaced by the heroic US military, maybe you'll feel a brief sense of outrage over *"the largest theft of national funds in history"*?
> 
> "US defense officials still cannot say what happened to $US6.6 billion ($6.3 billion/Australian) of the cash. Federal auditors are now suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error.
> 
> ...



Who stole it?
Why?
What does this have to do with the over all success the 34 countries and the countless brave volunteers that gave it all to perform this success?
The billions we spent to support the UNs failure, you make no  mention of
The billions we spent to keep troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to protect them from Saddam, not a peep
The millions that Saddam maimed, murdered, tortured, raped, not a word
Al Qaeda in Iraq, removed, killed, captured, how many billions and how many lives would have been lost, how many more in billions, trillions would it have cost us if Al Qaeda builds dirty bombs from the munitions that had nerve gas, mustard gas, yellow cake that was un secure in Iraq? 

Was the missing billions an event we should be proud of? of course not
Was it an event we had any thing to do with? of course not
whats your point?

Your scrapping the bottom of the barrel here in my opinion


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK's arguments have been defeated over and over and over.

That he does not accept it only proves how unreasonably stubborn, even immoral, he is,


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK's arguments have been defeated over and over and over.
> 
> That he does not accept it only proves how unreasonably stubborn, even immoral, he is,



Jake what has been defeated?
And exactly what is it you see that was Immoral?
The reason the liberal movement is losing supporters in this country is you in ability to debate the issues
Call people names, or worse like Mac attack the very people that keep us free of the Saddams of the world, for reasons that I will never understand and makes me and the millions of marines and ex marines confused as to the why

Jake we dis agree, that is what those kids died for, to allow us to dis agree
stubborn? I just believe the truth needs repeating

Jake Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, that has been confirmed
Saddam had weapons that was suppose to have been gone according to his terms of surrender, that has been confirmed
UN failed in enforcing them
Saddam killed millions
tortured millions

Yet your issue is with me? really?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, we have been through all of this before, and you have failed before.

So why should you be surprised that anything has changed?


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, we have been through all of this before, and you have failed before.
> 
> So why should you be surprised that anything has changed?



Jake I am not surprised
You have nothing to offer
Its the same
you keep calling people a failure for reasons that only you know
You angry that you have been lied too
Your upset that people like my self took the time and energy to do the DD it takes to form a real opinion that is based on actual information
people such as Mac are the ones who agree with you and I can honestly that alone would make me sad
Jake the left lied about these events and the main stream media so that congress would go democrat in 06 and BHO would be elected in 08

So much truth came out after the 06 elections that sadly has never been reported

No-one realized there was 550 metric tons of yellow cake that was un secured
No-one reported that Al Qaeda was leaving Afghan and going to Iraq including some of OBL's leaders
The left claimed the war was lost
the press tried to claim the enforcement of Saddam's terms of surrender was an event that only we were there to do and it had become a quagmire, yet there was 34 countries there and stayed there until we accomplished what we went to do

Jake, admit it, you have nothing to say because your wrong and your to hard headed to admit it


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, you are now spamming. All of your points that you have repeatedly posted have been repeated evidenced as false.  Nothing is going to change that.

Spamming is not going to help you in any way.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, you are now spamming. All of your points that you have repeatedly posted have been repeated evidenced as false.  Nothing is going to change that.
> 
> Spamming is not going to help you in any way.



Jake I watching golf
racing
texting friends
and a movie
you call me a liar
I keep responding the truth thinking in time you will  respond to that truth with the reasons you keep calling me a liar
That is not spamming Jake
you do not like what I have said, then shut up or respond in some manner other than stating my threads are not true
This is a message board Jake that its absolute intent is to discuss and debate, your calling me a liar will NOT be ignored
EVER

You do not like, then stop calling me a liar as that is the real spam Jake, IT IS MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND JAKE

Saddam lied
Saddam killed
Saddam tortured
Saddam had weapons
Al Qaeda was there
Yellow cake was there
you can count it Jake, its not spam, it is facts
again, turn to Fox, get a cold drink, a fine cigar like I am enjoying, thank a soldier that gave his all for you and chill out
I all ready am, but I will not allow you to call me a liar Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

All of your posts have been refuted, JRK, as either evidentially wrong or probatively insignificant to the operating premise that Iraq was a success.

You are wrong.  Iraq was a failure.

Nothing you can post or spam can possibly retrieve the failure of neo-con policies in the last decade.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> All of your posts have been refuted, JRK, as either evidentially wrong or probatively insignificant to the operating premise that Iraq was a success.
> 
> You are wrong.  Iraq was a failure.
> 
> Nothing you can post or spam can possibly retrieve the failure of neo-con policies in the last decade.



Jake there has nothing been reputed
NOTHING
And BTW the neocons have not been in power sense 2006
GWB was lame duck and when BHO won the 08 election he had close to a super majority as you can get

Jake you keep saying things that have not occurred
As you mature you will realize that to agree to dis agree is not a bad thing, claiming as you are that my information has been reputed when you know it has not is
none of it has Jake and you and I both know that
Your acting like a child jake

Chill out or speak your mind
Maybe taking you off of ignore was a mistake as I will not keep doing this


----------



## IndependntLogic (May 27, 2012)

LOL! Bankrupt America: Done
Create the largest, most powerful Shia bloc in history (Iran / Iraq / Syria): Done
Create the most corrupt government in the world (or 4th most corrupt if you want to go with a Conservative media source like Forbes): Done

Yeah um, big success there buddy


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK has merely spammed the same, old defeated nonsense.  With the arrival of BHO, the neo-cons' overwhelming arrogance was put on the shelf, the two great wars wound down in a timely manner, and the world watched America foreign policy handle Egypt and Libya deftly.  Romney will follow BHO rather GWB as a model in foreign policy,

JRK keeps stating nonsense, trying to ignore the wreckage of the Reserve and the Guard, the growing closeness of Iraq to Iran, and the damaged economy due to neo-con failures.

JRK and I both know that he has failed on this issue, yet again, as he has every time.

Perhaps I will put JRK on ignore, for many others on the Board take him roundly and in a timely manner for his lies and nonsensical postings.  JRK, so many on the Board, including me, have done much for America, some of us sacrificing much, while you have done nothing except sit in your armchair.

JRK, you are not even a sunshine patriot, just someone worthless of the great American heritage.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> LOL! Bankrupt America: Done
> Create the largest, most powerful Shia bloc in history (Iran / Iraq / Syria): Done
> Create the most corrupt government in the world (or 4th most corrupt if you want to go with a Conservative media source like Forbes): Done
> 
> Yeah um, big success there buddy



The deficit for 2007 was 163 billion
The deficit for 2010 was 1.267 trillion with an added 1 trillion in spending from 2007

This Iraq/Iran/Syria connection has lost steam, why? it is not true
Syria is about to have new leadership
Iraq has no more desire to get in bed with Iran than we do
I am not sure what the forbes comment nor the Corrupt govt comment means

Saddam had free elections also, he murdered 1 million of his own people according to the NY times, I guess that govt was the one you would prefer?
To torture?
To imprison 100s of thousands just because they were people who dis agreed with Saddam?
If the Iraqi people choose to elect Shia to be in power that and the democrats being in power in 2010 have what to do with each other?

The media cannot allow the truth to be told, yet you attack a govt that the people of Iraq choose to be there leader, you make claims of an alliance that has not had any proof exists any more than 2 countries be neighbors and you make no mention of the conditions that the Iraqis were put through prior to the 34 countries removing Saddam and killin many Al Qaeda leaders and troops who went there prior to our coalition invading


----------



## kaz (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Romney will follow BHO rather GWB as a model in foreign policy



Um...dude...they had the same foreign policy.  It's like saying he'll agree with Tweedle Dum and oppose Tweedle Dee.

Obama and Bush are both neocons.  If you don't understand what I said, look up the actual definition of "neocon."  Hint, neocon doesn't mean you don't like them...


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Romney will follow BHO rather GWB as a model in foreign policy
> ...




Jake BHO has used drones way more than GWB did
He did the right thing when we found OBL
He followed the treaty as signed into place prior to him becoming president and has surprisingly took a somewhat aggressive approach to the war in Afghanistan
Gitmo is still open
There has been not one terrorist put on "trial"

to the point Obama has made some errors, he made some apologies he should have never made, but over-all he has been a pleasant surprise

The one thing Jake and for that matter all lefties had been brain washed in forgetting was that these are evil people and the reality that BHO on some fronts (such as the aggressive use of drones) have made GWB look weak 
It amazes me the level of hatred towards GWB and how much he was called baby killer and the lies that tied KBR, profit and other events that never occurred that not only have remained the same, but in some cases have grown under BHO without a peep


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, the one thing you have right is that the BHO admin has used drones better than the bushies.  In almost all other ways, this admin has far outperformed the neo-cons.

JRK has merely repeated the same old nonsense again and again and again.

And he does it while real Americans have suffered and died for mistakes made by people like him.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, the one thing you have right is that the BHO admin has used drones better than the bushies.  In almost all other ways, this admin has far outperformed the neo-cons.
> 
> JRK has merely repeated the same old nonsense again and again and again.
> 
> And he does it while real Americans have suffered and died for mistakes made by people like him.



Jake your way out of line
I have had nothing to do with any-ones death
you attack Americans like me and never mention the real people of terror such as Saddam and OBL
Jake that would be strike 2
Jake do not ever make a statement about me like that again, my beliefs and who I am ever again or I will put you on ignore (again)
And as far as what I say on this message board, if you do not like it, ignore it
You have not got the courage to debate these facts, that is fine
But it is time for you either put up pr shut up, you got no balls to put your beliefs out there to be scrutinized does not give you the right to attack me or any one else you dis agree with

Jake those Americans who you claim suffered and died did it so you could sit behind that key board and conduct your self as you have
SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR YOU
Those people who harmed those people Jake are evil so why you continue to attack me and other Americans while ignore that fact is becoming very suspicious as to who and what you really are Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, your support of the neo-cons means that you have everything to do with their failures in the last decade.

I know Iraqis, JRK.  I know Iranians, JRK.  I have known them since their war during the 1970s.  I have been good friends with those who hated Saddam and those who opposed the mullahs.

We despise ignorant fools, like you, JRK, who have worked against the real Americans who are trying to make the world a better place.

JRK, you have no moral authority every to speak for these heroes: they despise you.

You are on ignore,


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, your support of the neo-cons means that you have everything to do with their failures in the last decade.
> 
> I know Iraqis, JRK.  I know Iranians, JRK.  I have known them since their war during the 1970s.  I have been good friends with those who hated Saddam and those who opposed the mullahs.
> 
> ...



I have to every speak Jake?
Who despise me Jake? the troops you have said nothing good about?
The troops that you have ignored for 3000 posts on this thread Jake?
You have only attacked Jake
not once have you said anything about the enemies of this free world Jake
Not once have you shared with us why you has so nothing to say about Saddam, OBL or any-one else who has harmed our troops or the troops of the 34 countries that went with is to Iraq and the others that have went to Afghan 
For 3000 posts with-in this thread all you have done is attack me and fellow Americans

Ignore?
Jake you want to put me on ignore?
Only because I make you look at who and what you are Jake, I am fine with it bud

I hold no hard feelings, to be honest Jake I feel sorry for you


----------



## Lakhota (May 27, 2012)

> Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?



Ask the families of the dead and wounded soldiers if their sacrifice in Iraq was worth the cost.


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the families of the dead and wounded soldiers if their sacrifice in Iraq was worth the cost.



Your using the sacrifice of people who volunteered to go to Iraq and defend this country and to assure you have the same freedoms today you had when you where born?
Not one death comes without pain, not one

Why is it you your so quick to use those deaths to promote an agenda and not once speak out about those who were actually responsible for that death?
There was 6 million violent crimes in this country last year
There was 160 police officers killed in the US in 2010
in a 10 year span that would be 1600

Evil people are every where, yet those sacrifices are how on being different in those you use to promote your agenda?
Those people are evil, the people who killed our troops in Iraq and Afghan are evil, without them no-one dies    
Try and show a little respect for that would you? it is memorial day
And I do not recall ever stating violence of any kind was a good thing. We had an event, 9-11
We had no choice but to end the reign of terror in both of those countries and yes Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
It was part of the reason we went

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 27, 2012)

JRK, you have no moral authority to speak for the heroes.  

Every good American despises neo-cons like you, including the troops.  

I have clearly over the months demonstrated your distortions of the truth for what they are, JRK.

JRK, you have ignored the harm done to the Guard and the Reserve because of repeated tours.

You have tried to ignore the terrible damage done to the economy.

JRK, you have ignored that Iraq draws closer to Iran every day.

JRK has injured the character of our veterans, the dignity of our country, and the image of America every time he defends the indefensible.

And he wants to put me on ignore?  Go ahead, JRK, you won't have to face the truth anymore about your worthless personally and of your immoral positions.


----------



## Lakhota (May 27, 2012)

Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link - CBS News


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK, you have no moral authority to speak for the heroes.
> 
> Every good American despises neo-cons like you, including the troops.
> 
> ...



I thought you was going to put me on ignore Jake?
Look at your thread Jake
not one word about the evil
not one word of thanks to those who sacrificed
your entire thread is filled with hate about me Jake
why?
Jake chill out, I am not the enemy
And as far as me facing the truth from you?
Jake I really do feel sorry for you and yes I am putting you on ignore Jake, you have no class bud
I wish I could help you Jake, and I am sure there are people who love you feel the same

Jake, chill out
Saddam was evil
OBL, same
attacking me has become childish

Like I said before I hold no hard feelings, i really do feel sorry for you


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link - CBS News



Who said anything about a Saddam link?
That is the left wing media spinning the truth
Al Qaeda was in Iraq in the 90s and when they fled Afghan some went to Iraq, One of the very reasons we had to go there

There was Saddam  
There where weapons
There was 550 metric tons of yellow cake
there was Al Qaeda
Blair elaborates: 

There is an interesting sidebar to this. *It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats*. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 
*
Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. *

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

This story evolved over time
it was not until 2008 we made public of the 550 metric tons of yellow cake
It was not until 2010 we confirmed that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to invading (public ally anny-way)
read the thread


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

In an audiotape released on February 11, 2003, bin Laden explained why. &#8220;It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one,&#8221; bin Laden argued. &#8220;There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims&#8217; interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.&#8221;

Bin Laden&#8217;s message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist &#8220;infidel,&#8221; but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam&#8217;s forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a &#8220;convergence of interests&#8221; as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda &#8220;with open arms&#8221; and &#8220;strictly and directly&#8221; controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaeda&#8217;s earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.

Muhammad al Masari, a Saudi who operates a known al Qaeda front in London and has helped recruit suicide bombers to fight in Iraq, has offered a similar account. In his book The Secret History of al Qaeda, Abdel Bari Atwan recounts a conversation he had with al Masari. Saddam &#8220;saw that Islam would be key to the formation of a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion,&#8221; according to al Masari. Thus, Saddam funded the relocation of al Qaeda operatives to Iraqi soil. Al Masari says that Saddam also ordered officers in the Iraqi military to purchase &#8220;small plots of land from&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201; farmers in Sunni areas&#8221; and then bury &#8220;arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.&#8221;

There is much more evidence in this vein, including, for instance, Iraqi intelligence documents recovered after the fall of Saddam. Some of the documents demonstrate that Saddam called on hundreds of terrorists from around the Middle East to come to Iraq in the months leading up to the war. Many of them had been trained by Saddam&#8217;s regime beginning in the late 1990s. In early 2003, Saddam opened his border with Syria to allow this stream of terrorists in. In one recovered document, Saddam ordered his military to &#8220;utilize&#8221; Arab suicide bombers against the invading forces. This was almost certainly a reference to al Qaeda.

All of this may sound like a belated attempt to relitigate the case for war. It is not. Reasonable people can differ on how to handle Saddam&#8217;s prewar sponsorship of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Tony Blair does not present Saddam&#8217;s terrorist ties as a major justification for war. By the same token, it is simply false to claim, as Obama and the Democrats have, that Al Qaeda in Iraq &#8220;didn&#8217;t exist before our invasion.&#8221; 

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies


----------



## JRK (May 27, 2012)

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Bin Laden&#8217;s message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist &#8220;infidel,&#8221; but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam&#8217;s forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a &#8220;convergence of interests&#8221; as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda &#8220;with open arms&#8221; and &#8220;strictly and directly&#8221; controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaeda&#8217;s earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.

Muhammad al Masari, a Saudi who operates a known al Qaeda front in London and has helped recruit suicide bombers to fight in Iraq, has offered a similar account. In his book The Secret History of al Qaeda, Abdel Bari Atwan recounts a conversation he had with al Masari. Saddam &#8220;saw that Islam would be key to the formation of a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion,&#8221; according to al Masari. Thus, Saddam funded the relocation of al Qaeda operatives to Iraqi soil. Al Masari says that Saddam also ordered officers in the Iraqi military to purchase &#8220;small plots of land from&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201; farmers in Sunni areas&#8221; and then bury &#8220;arms and money caches for later use by the resistance.&#8221;

There is much more evidence in this vein, including, for instance, Iraqi intelligence documents recovered after the fall of Saddam. Some of the documents demonstrate that Saddam called on hundreds of terrorists from around the Middle East to come to Iraq in the months leading up to the war. Many of them had been trained by Saddam&#8217;s regime beginning in the late 1990s. In early 2003, Saddam opened his border with Syria to allow this stream of terrorists in. In one recovered document, Saddam ordered his military to &#8220;utilize&#8221; Arab suicide bombers against the invading forces. This was almost certainly a reference to al Qaeda.

All of this may sound like a belated attempt to relitigate the case for war. It is not. Reasonable people can differ on how to handle Saddam&#8217;s prewar sponsorship of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Tony Blair does not present Saddam&#8217;s terrorist ties as a major justification for war. By the same token, it is simply false to claim, as Obama and the Democrats have, that Al Qaeda in Iraq &#8220;didn&#8217;t exist before our invasion.&#8221; 

More important, the Democrats&#8217; politically convenient antiwar arguments have obscured a deeper truth. The war for Iraq was clearly part of the broader war against al Qaeda. Saddam&#8217;s regime and al Qaeda made it so. This is undoubtedly what Blair meant when he wrote that Saddam&#8217;s decision to host al Qaeda inside Iraq had &#8220;severe consequences&#8221; and that Britain and the United States probably &#8220;should have paid more attention&#8221; to this intelligence.

In the end, Blair laments the fact that he did not do more to connect the struggle for Iraq with the broader war against Islamic extremism. Indeed, the Democrats still pretend that Iraq was a distraction.

When President Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq on August 31, he referred to al Qaeda&#8217;s presence in Iraq only in passing. Obama argued that &#8220;because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense.&#8221; The implication was that the war in Iraq was the &#8220;wrong battlefield.&#8221;

That is not how Blair sees it. Al Qaeda and &#8220;militant Islam&#8221; were the source of the &#8220;mess&#8221; inside Iraq. These were the same forces &#8220;we were fighting everywhere,&#8221; Blair writes. &#8220;Fighting them in Iraq was not therefore a diversion from the real battle. It had become part of it.&#8221;


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK, you have no moral authority to speak for the heroes.
> ...



The evil is you and your words, JRK. the hate for those who disagree with you.

Yes, your type is the enemy of our country and its institutions and its beliefs and our people,

Those of us who understand you believe that you cannot be helped, JRK, that you have become so enmeshed with the perversion of neo-con ideals that you cannot find your way back,

Please stop defending the wrong.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake I thought I was on Ignore?
What is it I am defending that is wrong?
removing mass murders?
Terrorist?
What exactly is a neo-con idea?
And exactly where is it I am trying to find my way back to?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> Jake I thought I was on Ignore?
> What is it I am defending that is wrong?
> removing mass murders?
> Terrorist?
> ...




And now you become obtuse, right on cue.

You refuse to admit the horrific costs that have been paid by our soldiers for what you feel are victories.  And yet you pretend to "support" those same troops, while questioning the motivations of people who are actually trying to keep them out of sham wars and hopeless danger.

Our soldiers deserve far better "supporters" than you, they deserve people who actually care about their lives, limbs, minds, families and children.  Our soldiers are not pawns that you can use on a whim to police the planet, they are people who deserve better.

I'm sorry for them that people like you try to speak for them, that you claim to "support" them.

.


----------



## Bloodline (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Find and eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMD and neutralize his ability to continue his WMD programs.

NOT DONE.

Nearly a trillion dollars in wasted tax money spent on a lie

DONE.

The near bankrupcy of the U.S. economy

DONE

4,487 soldiers dead and another 32,223 wounded

DONE

Loss of respect in the international community and the loss of our reputation as "peace keepers"

DONE

The destabilization of the power balance in the middle east and the creation of a dangerous power vacuum

DONE

The creation of deep seated hatred toward our country by a people who previously had none and the guarantee of retribution for generations

DONE

A president and his cabinent in retirement making money off of books and lectures instead of standing trial for war crimes thus setting a terrible precedent the next time WE want to call another tyrannical world leader a "criminal"

Done

Anymore questions?


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



You and Mac have the same respect level
The troops who gave it all never asked for your opinion, they felt it was the right thing to do. You should respect that
The debt?
In 2007 we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget, in 2010 it was well over 1 trillion
The difference?
The GOP and the Democratic party, not the enforcement of surrender terms

As far as respect? there was 34 countries in Iraq enforcing those terms of surrender

Crime? it is sad that each of you never state your facts to be disputed. You just make claims that have nothing back them up

And having Mac on your side? there are millions of marines who think allot if Mac and the way he honors there sacrifices
I would choose my friends more wisley


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

It amazes me the liberal mind hates GWB but never mention the real terrorist
Saddam killed millions
tortured the same
OBL attacked this country for no other reason than to kill and maim

Yet the far left attacks the very people who permanently removed those people from earth. To claim the middle east is un stable because Saddam is dead, Al Qaeda has been broken, that is not reality


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



  After the dozens of times you kept saying I was on ignore and now it is fun to watch you hop up and down for being told the same thing.  You are going to be on ignore, ignore, ignore, when I get around to it.   You will just have to hop and up and down for now.

You guys damaged our economy, wrecked our military, and screwed up the Guard and Reserve.

You have no moral right to speak for the veterans.

That should be clear enough, hmmm?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> What exactly is a neo-con idea?





> Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?



not knowing the answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

The answer is that the Iraqi invasion and its consequences resulted from the worst foreign policy decision by any American administration in history,

You guys are going to have to own it forever, neo-cons.


----------



## Bloodline (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Well it didn't take you long to dive into the muck and regurgitate the same lame talking points put out by the Karl Rove spin machine back in 2003!

"Anyone who refuses to pledge BLIND unquestioning support for ANYTHING the Bushies say or do is against the troops."

That dog don't hunt no more though.

Just ask these guys....

Iraq Veterans Against the War | You are not alone

I'll get back to your other points later.

I have a lunch date.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



I do not have to ask any-one, I have family members who were there
The only question I would have for those people is why volunteer for something your against?
K Rove had nothing to do with who and what Saddam was  
I have never claimed any-one needed to be in blind support of anything, that is not what those people went there to fight for
You want to dis respect the event, that is your choice
Talking points?
Saddam killing millions is a fact
Saddam Hussein killer file
www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htmlAug 12, 2001  Saddam translates to 'One Who Confronts'. Country: Iraq. Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150000 and 340000 Iraqi and ...

Saddam ignored the terms of surrender from 1991, that is a fact
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918Jun 29, 2006  Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 ...

Update 27 January 2003

These are not talking points, these are facts


----------



## buckeye45_73 (May 28, 2012)

Well Liberals wont say it succeeded, because apparently a dictator that has rape rooms and tortures his sbujects is ok, but he better not waterboard....ooohh that real torture.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

This vets against the war link is a joke t be used as it is
There has been over 1 million people volunteer to fight these battles to the point in which many are being turned away
That compared to the very very very very few who ask for your money to be against the war makes 
a mockery of the millions who did there job, went home and asking for nothing more in return


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> Well Liberals wont say it succeeded, because apparently a dictator that has rape rooms and tortures his sbujects is ok, but he better not waterboard....ooohh that real torture.



There hate for GWB boggles the mind
To ignore the real terrorist such as Saddam boggles the mind


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

The neo-cons made a mockery of everything America stands for.  The personnel who were trapped with Stop Go and not allowed to exit when they were supposed to discharge.  The terrible post-discharge conditions for vets.  The fact that *no WMDS as described by the administration were found, ever*.  The fact that the economy was severely damaged by costs kept off the regular budget, the fact the war was outsourced to corporations, who raped the taxpayer,  And on and on and on . . .

JRK has no moral basis to speak on behalf of the vets, none.

JRK is a disgrace,


----------



## buckeye45_73 (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The neo-cons made a mockery of everything America stands for.  The personnel who were trapped with Stop Go and not allowed to exit when they were supposed to discharge.  The terrible post-discharge conditions for vets.  The fact that *no WMDS as described by the administration were found, ever*.  The fact that the economy was severely damaged by costs kept off the regular budget, the fact the war was outsourced to corporations, who raped the taxpayer,  And on and on and on . . .
> 
> JRK has no moral basis to speak on behalf of the vets, none.
> 
> JRK is a disgrace,



So there was no WMD, yet everyone in the world thought there was....so after 9/11 you'd just allow things to go on as normal..

oh and the UN, I bet you love it...so if they issue 17 declarations that  are ignored or violated, what should we do? I'd love to ditch the UN, it's useless and the Iraq situtaion in the 90s proved it. Typical liberal crap, stop, if you dont stop....I'm gonna tell you again....at some point their has to be an ass whoopin for that to be effective, liberals dont get that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

Thank you for admitting there were no WMDs.

OK, the USA won the war then lost the peace.  And broke Iraq good.  And nearly broke our economy.  And ruined our Reserve and National Guard units with repeated tours over and over and over there,.

The UN?  Show me where the UN authorized the USA to act on behalf of the UN.

Ass whopping?  Sure was: our economy, our troop morale, our standing in the world, and so forth.

You neo-cons broke it all, you own it all.


----------



## Too Tall (May 28, 2012)

Sallow said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



What lie did Bush tell?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for admitting there were no WMDs.
> 
> OK, the USA won the war then lost the peace.  And broke Iraq good.  And nearly broke our economy.  And ruined our Reserve and National Guard units with repeated tours over and over and over there,.
> 
> ...



yeah broke our economy, funny thing is our economy was better during the war. Thanks but you're not dealing with a high school student.  What do you think the 17th resolution was for. It was the resolution that allowed Hussein to comply or ...................be dealt with. He didnt comply (as usual) and therefore action was taken. So you would have just let it go on and on and on. Sorry but what broke the economy was affirmative action housing.....giving people loans who couldnt afford the houses so we have a more "Equal" share of diversity in home ownership. Then with all these loans and people defaulting, ooops.....CRASH and with OBama failing to do ANYTHING about energy (gotta use fossil fuels now, alternative energy isnt practical right now) it's difficult for the economy to recover.

 I'm sure you're ok with the UN allowing Iran to have nukes, yeah that's a great idea, except I thought liberals were big on nuclear non proliferation? So you are until a country decides to go for it and then you're like...oh whatever we were just kidding.


----------



## Too Tall (May 28, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> > Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the families of the dead and wounded soldiers if their sacrifice in Iraq was worth the cost.



Why don't you ask them?  I would bet that most of them are American Patriots and knew the hazards of military service.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The neo-cons made a mockery of everything America stands for.  The personnel who were trapped with Stop Go and not allowed to exit when they were supposed to discharge.  The terrible post-discharge conditions for vets.  The fact that *no WMDS as described by the administration were found, ever*.  The fact that the economy was severely damaged by costs kept off the regular budget, the fact the war was outsourced to corporations, who raped the taxpayer,  And on and on and on . . .
> 
> JRK has no moral basis to speak on behalf of the vets, none.
> 
> JRK is a disgrace,



You ever heard of the US constitution Jake?
there is that silly little thing called freedom of speech
Now when it comes to not finding what the Admin claimed was in Iraq, which one and what claims are you talking about?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: *a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.* If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
RightWingNews.com :: Archives

He was right in some cases here. The over 500 munitions found after we went in to enforce the terms of surrender Saddam had ignored still had the potential to be used as was the case in Japan with the Sub Way gassing

Dis grace?
Jake your hate for me is becoming comical, chill out bud
your attacking and the people who you claim to be evil are not, that is confusing Jake
Jake the issues the VETs face today are there issues
All we can do is support them
Using there plight to find support for your agenda is not helping any-one


----------



## Too Tall (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The housing collapse damaged our economy, and the Clinton administration started it and Bush continued it.  Bush did try and slow it down, but the Democrats weren't having any of it.

I am a Veteran and I agree with JRK most of the time.  What do you think the purpose of having a Reserve and a National Guard is?  I also served in the Guard as well as on active duty, and in the Guard we drilled once a month and two weeks in the summer to prepare to go to war if called.  We got paid to do this.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 28, 2012)

And it cost us billions and over 5,000 lives of yound women and men, lives of millions of Iraqis destoryed and for what was none of our businesses any way. We are not the police of the world. Saddam was not a threat and we killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did and the country is not stabilized. Sunni and Shiites are still killing each other and they will never stop. Under Saddam they lived together in peace. We have never won a war and wars are never won. OBL won because he accomplished what he planned, to destory our economy and got us to come to him so he did not have to come to us to kill us. WE are getting dumber each day. Afghanistan will never be stabilized either and Pakistan is a worse threat then Iran. We never learn by our mistake and we keep making them over and over. IF Romney get elected, we will be at war with Iran and more of young men and women will be killed.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



God Bless you and Thank you for your service
I hate any of you had to go any where. I think that is the reason I began this thread some time ago
I got so tired of the good things you did over there and the real reasons we went, it was not just about the terms of surrender Saddam had ignored
That was another item that upset me. The UN resolutions were in reality terms Saddam agreed to so we would not finish him off in 1991  
All he ever had to do was to do what he said he would from weapons to oil for food


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The mismanaged finances of the war helped to damage the economy, and Bush and our GOP no more than the Dems tried to slow it down.  I served as well, Too Tall, for 12 years active duty in combat arms.  I helped to train the reserves from time to time Our Guard and Reserve were not created to go on multiple missions overseas.  You are vet, so you have something to say about this.  Thank you.

"The UN resolutions were in reality terms Saddam agreed to", and the USA was given no legal right to enforce them through invasion by the UN.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> And it cost us billions and over 5,000 lives of yound women and men, lives of millions of Iraqis destoryed and for what was none of our businesses any way. We are not the police of the world. Saddam was not a threat and we killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did and the country is not stabilized. Sunni and Shiites are still killing each other and they will never stop. Under Saddam they lived together in peace. We have never won a war and wars are never won. OBL won because he accomplished what he planned, to destory our economy and got us to come to him so he did not have to come to us to kill us. WE are getting dumber each day. Afghanistan will never be stabilized either and Pakistan is a worse threat then Iran. We never learn by our mistake and we keep making them over and over. IF Romney get elected, we will be at war with Iran and more of young men and women will be killed.



Last year 6 million people where a victim of a violent crime in the US
Iraqis killed by Saddam loyalist, Al Qaeda and other terror groups were closer to 10,000 than 1 million
Lying about that is un ethical
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][3][4][5]	109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[6][7]	January 2004 to December 2009
These deaths were close to the same murdered in this country during the same time
Saddam killed close to 2 million during his reign of terror

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_IraqAccording to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] *murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned ...*
Documented human rights ... - 'Saddam's Dirty Dozen' - Number of Victims

The mission was for many reasons
WMDs 
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918Jun 29, 2006  Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 ...
no not the ones the UN claimed he had, nor the CIA, but there where proof he had ignored the terms he agreed to in his surrender in 1991

Al Qaeda being there in 02

Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. *The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 
*
Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. *Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002*.
Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

Iraq (Saddam) had 11 years to do the right thing, after 9-11 his time was up


----------



## Bloodline (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> It amazes me the liberal mind hates GWB but never mention the real terrorist
> Saddam killed millions
> tortured the same
> OBL attacked this country for no other reason than to kill and maim
> ...



Saddam did rule with an iron hand. What business is it of the U.S.'s though what another leader does in his own sovereign country? Isn't that the definition of SOVEREIGNITY?

I take it you have just as little respect for the sovereignity of the United States as you do for that of other nations? You must be all for opening our borders and disbanding our military then?

It appears that with "friends" like you my nation doesn't even really need enemies does it?

BTW...There is very good reason to believe that this final justification that the Bushies finally settled on for invading Iraq (removing a brutal dictator) is ILLEGAL and a war crime under the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950 number 82 Principle VI

a. *Crimes against peace: *

    i.    Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; 

    ii.    Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). 

Also OBL was not from Iraq and had no ties to Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a Ba'athist who supported the rise to power of a Sunni majority in his nation. OBL was a Saudi extremist...FAR from a Ba'athist or Sunni. Hussein actually had more in common with the U.S. than he did Bin Laden.

Finally, Osama was quite prolific in his words as to WHY he found it necessary to attack us on 9-11-2001. To me his reasons were bullshit but I'm still not stupid enough to fool myself into believing that it was just a random attack of senseless violence.

Try reading his own supposed "justification" for that tragic day and see what you think.

Understanding Terrorism: Why dies Osama bin Laden hate the USA and other Western nations?

former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden summed it up this way.

 "This hatred towards the U.S. arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and valueGod, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim landsare being attacked by America. They hate us for what we do, not who we are."

Make of that what you will but it kinda goes beyond the simplistic reason of simply to "kill and maim" doesn't it?


----------



## masterp (May 28, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjpVDzLK6-g]H449 OSU Smoke Free Campus, best anti-smoking ad ever! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The neo-cons made a mockery of everything America stands for.  The personnel who were trapped with Stop Go and not allowed to exit when they were supposed to discharge.  The terrible post-discharge conditions for vets.  The fact that *no WMDS as described by the administration were found, ever*.  The fact that the economy was severely damaged by costs kept off the regular budget, the fact the war was outsourced to corporations, who raped the taxpayer,  And on and on and on . . .
> ...



Actually the intelligence we were provided was not 100% correct, nor 100% wrong, there where weapons found that met the criteria as a WMD
*The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.*
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html

The Libs attack me for this fact and I am not sure why. These weapons were useless in the condition they were found except for there pay-load and that they were a *clear violation of the terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to in 1991
As stated in this data provided to congress in 2006 and should be noted the UN had claimed there was as many as 6500 of these in different states of condition
This as I asses was a clear violation*


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake what branch?
where did you go to boot camp?
Rank?

Jake being in the military and dis agreeing that the US does not have the right to defend itself is a contradiction
The UN has no jurisdiction over this country Jake. What about the 33 other countries that went with us?
I thought being in the military meant you were bound to defend the constitution Jake?


----------



## Bloodline (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


*

I suppose that might be a good (credible) DOD link IF it worked 

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch IF these so called useless "weapons" even existed to use them to justify the bogus claims made by Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush about what an imminent threat Iraq was to our national security?*


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 28, 2012)

The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration was, is and will always remain a failure and a stain on our great nation.  Only fools belief and liars contend that anything positive was gained by the death, destruction, deceit and near depression that was the result of Iraq fiasco.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > It amazes me the liberal mind hates GWB but never mention the real terrorist
> ...



This crimes thing then would include Clinton as well as BHO then?
what about the 29 Democratic Senators that voted to enforce the UN resolutions?
By the use of force?
What about the 33 other countries such as Poland (I use them because there special force groups were bad ass)?
You want all of them to be arrested?
Your kidding right?
The UN has 0 jurisdiction
Reality is a far thing away from were you are bud

The world court has 0 jurisdiction and as far as I know never officially charged any-one. Iraq lost its right to be a sovereign nation when they invaded Kuwait for no reason and agreed to terms of surrender

BTW why done you Libs have an issue with the billions the UN made in monies on Iraqi oil?

 WHEN UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL Kofi Annan quipped several years ago that he could "do business" with Saddam Hussein, he meant it figuratively. In light of the substantive charges coming out of the ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal, the throwaway line seems revealing or at least ironic.

"I think we have to take him literally," says Republican senator Norm Coleman, who is leading one of eight investigations into the corruption and mismanagement of the U.N.'s largest-ever humanitarian relief effort.

The basic outline of the scandal is simple: Saddam Hussein used the Oil-for-Food program to circumvent U.N. sanctions imposed after the Gulf war and to enrich himself and his allies. He did this by bribing leading journalists and diplomats and demanding kickbacks from those who profited from selling Iraqi oil. That he was able to do so indicates at least that the U.N. badly mismanaged the program it set up in December 1996. None of this is particularly astonishing. No one is surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein cheats, that politicians take bribes, and that the competence level of the U.N. bureaucracy is, well, suboptimal.

Nevertheless, the details of the Oil-for-Food scandal--who participated, and what they apparently did--are jaw-dropping. Vladimir Putin's chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, appears to have accepted millions of dollars in oil-soaked bribes from Saddam Hussein. The same appears to be true of the former interior minister of France, Charles Pasqua, a close friend of President Jacques Chirac. And the same appears to be true of three high-ranking U.N. executives including Benon Sevan, handpicked by Kofi Annan to administer the Oil-for-Food program. Oil-for-Food money even went to terrorist organizations supported by the Iraqi regime and, according to U.S. investigators, might be funding the insurgency today.

Through seven years' worth of deals that should never have been made, compromises that should never have been struck, and concessions that should never have been granted, Oil-for-Food strengthened Saddam Hussein. What we know about all of this now is a fraction of what will eventually be uncovered. But even this limited understanding should mean an end to Kofi Annan's term as secretary general. The sad history of U.N. incompetence on Iraq generally and in the Oil-for-Food program specifically is enough to make you wonder why George W. Bush settled for John Bolton rather than, say, John Rocker to push for reform at the world body.

Saddam's Business Partners

The scandal engulfing the United Nations' oil-for-food program is not just a tale of a few sticky-fingered U.N. bureaucrats on the take. The program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, authorized at least $69 billion in Iraqi oil sales, supposedly to fund the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian necessities for Iraqis suffering under U.N. economic sanctions. Oil-for-food was the largest humanitarian relief operation in United Nations history.

In the event, it was thoroughly subverted and defrauded. Saddam Hussein diverted billions of dollars from the program as U.N. administrators looked the other way while skimming off some of the proceeds for themselves.

Sen. Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, estimates that Saddam raked off $6.7 billion from the oil-for-food program, plus another $13.7 billion by selling oil on the black market. Whether, as many suspect, Saddam used some of these billions to, in effect, bribe members of the U.N. Security Council to loosen sanctions and oppose any military action against Iraq remains to be determined.

Coleman, a political moderate and a former prosecutor, says Annan should resign "because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch."

Kofi Annan's dysfunctional United Nations | The San Diego Union-Tribune


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> SNIP



Your spamming does not change the failure of the Iraqi war and the devastation wreaked on Iraq and Americans and tore up our military and damaged our economy.

JRK, on this, Memorial Day, you should be ashamed of speaking.  This day is for vets and not the blood suckers like you who live off their sacrifices.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration was, is and will always remain a failure and a stain on our great nation.  Only fools belief and liars contend that anything positive was gained by the death, destruction, deceit and near depression that was the result of Iraq fiasco.



You act so Liberal
Why do you Libs Lower your self to the actions of your leadership?
You dis agree, so you call this you dis agree with fools and liars?
Is that how you feel about BHO?
the 29 democratic senators that voted for the use of force to remove Saddam and enforce the UN resolutions he had ignored?
Satin? Stain?
there where 34 countries involved in that action, it was not just the US

What about the 2 million deaths Saddam was resp for?
and Al Qaeda along with Saddam loyalist and other terror groups such as Chezk Muslims, Iranians and terror groups from Pakistan as examples killed most of the civilians in Iraq

BTW there were 6 million victims of crime in this country in 2010
there where about the same number of people murdered in this country during the same time as civilians killed by those same terror groups I fore mentioned in Iraq according to wiki leaks


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> SNIP



JRK, on this, Memorial Day, you should be ashamed of speaking. This day is for vets and not the blood suckers like you who live off their sacrifices.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > SNIP
> ...



Jake I told you about talking trash about me
We are done Jake
your insults and childish attacks on me have ended
This thread has over 3000 posts in it and all you have done is lied about me and spammed those lies and insults and NOT ONCE have you thanked the very people you have claimed to be one of
boot camp Jake?
rank Jake?
what branch Jake?
What division Jake?
what Platoon Jake?
commanding officer Jake?
we are done Jake, I have taken you off of ignore twice and you continue to conduct your self as though your some kind of buffoon
Your attacks on me have ended here today Jake


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration was, is and will always remain a failure and a stain on our great nation.  Only fools belief and liars contend that anything positive was gained by the death, destruction, deceit and near depression that was the result of Iraq fiasco.
> ...



Read my post, nothing (NOTHING) but grief and loss was the result of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

_The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration was, is and will always remain a failure and a stain on our great nation. Only fools belief and liars contend that anything positive was gained by the death, destruction, deceit and near depression that was the result of Iraq fiasco. _

Keep posting that the Iraq fiasco was anything else, and you'll keep painting yourself as a fool and a liar.


----------



## Bloodline (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > SNIP
> ...



We honor our vets by calling those to account who would (and have) commit treason against the very flag they protect by sending them into harms way for reasons not even remotely related to America's national security. This is the "cause" they took an oath to defend after all. Unfortunately once the papers are signed these people....America's FINEST and BRAVEST are powerless to question or second guess the decisions of their commanders, especially the C.I.C.!

That is what we patriotic taxpaying civilians are tasked to do for them.

Others (like yourself) are perfectly content to dishonor their sacrifice in a silly political game where you refuse to question your leaders because they belong to your own political party and they demand your unflinching compliance to their dogma. So you dutifully comply regardless of how it serves our men and women in uniform.

SHAMEFULL!

Someday you may realize that the stakes in REAL life are a bit more consequential and your blind loyalty to your political party's PROPAGANDA has consequences more far reaching and bigger than just YOU?

Until then you don't need to worry about how those of us who dare question unjust wars reconcile ourselves to the sacrifices of America's brave troops.

They sacrifice so that even idiots like YOU can continue to survive and prosper in this Democratic Republic! Even though you're not really a credible participant!

Now....go figure out how you're going to sleep again tonight you LEECH!!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> SNIP



Not this day, JRK, not on this day do you have anything to say to the veterans or about the veterans or about their sacrifices.

JRK, you can do no good.  For the sake of decency, be quiet.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Wry that is not what I ask you
Dis agreeing with policy is your right
calling those who dis agree with you liar, fools is childish

I have not posted 1 lie and I for one do not believe removing Saddam, re moving Al Qaeda from Iraq as well as other terror organisations was not foolish
Saddam killed millions
Al Qaeda was there before we invaded building there forces, this has been confirmed in the last 2 years
Saddam was paying terrorist to kill Jews in Israel
Saddam ignored the terms of surrender HE agreed to in 1991

These are facts

You think Saddam should have been allowed to continue and Al Qaeda been allowed to build up its forces in Iraq, you have that right (why?) but that does not give you the right to attack the people who think this world is a much better place without those terrorist

It amazes me that Saddam killing millions was okay, AL Qaeda killing Iraqis along with Saddam loyalist, Iranians and other terror groups such as Chezk Muslims is your right, but to attack me (us) as though we caused all of this is fantasy


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Jake go away
your done here


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK has completely fallen flat, because he keeps posting the same failed crap,

JRK, don't dishonor the veterans with your vileness here, not today, not on this day,

You are finished here.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



I simply answered your question.  The facts are on my side, nothing was gained by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  The removal and subsequent death of Saddam is not and never will be worth the lives of our men and women killed and wounded over there.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

Dooshes like JRK live off the blood and sacrifices of the military and the anguish of their families.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Leech? Idiot?
name calling is childish and has no place in my life
that would be strike one

Let me ask you a simple question when it comes to the troops you use the word unjust, treason, so-on
Why did they continue to volunteer after 3/2003?
There is no game in this manner nor is there nothing silly about Saddam, Al Qaeda and the 33 other countries that were in Iraq doing the same we were

You have allot of anger about events that does not include any towards the real terrorist
Saddam
Al Qaeda
Hezbollah
Iranians
Chezks 

All of these where in Iraq, Al Qaeda before we invaded
You got a problem with removing the people behind 9-11?
BHO did not

 Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.
 Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 

Even though Blair says it *later emerged* that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was *actually a formal part of the American case for war. *Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

My reasons for supporting this event has facts as my reason why
It amazes me that most all troops had no issue going there and doing it is what they did and you feel its your place to speak for them
I find that very dis respectful


----------



## Too Tall (May 28, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Thanks for your service. I still believe that the war(s) did a lot less damage to the economy than the housing collapse.  Some will say that the war was good for the economy. Lots of jobs were created in the Defense industry.

And, our Guard and Reserve were created to go to war when activated. Nothing says it would be for 6 months or longer. I remember reading about WWII where the draft was for 'the duration and a year.'  Even Vietnam was a one year deployment.  And many went back for 3 or 4 tours.

The US doesn't need UN legal rights to do what is in the best interest of the US.  Very little that comes out of the UN favors the US if you haven't noticed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

The housing collapse and the the war worked together to damage the economy.

Please do not mistake conscription with the Guard and Reserve.  The Guard and Reserve were created for emergencies, local and regional and international, but not to the extent that the personnel were envisioned to serve two and more tours overseas over a period of years.  As an aside: a voluntary no-draft force gives the President a private military to do with as he pleases with little restraint by a Congress dominated by his own Party.

The neo-cons should not make false claims that they are upholding UN resolutions, when in fact the US was failing in neo-con attempts to remake the ME into an America friendly zone.  The fact is this: the US is not immune to international law.  Why do you think senior Bushies almost never travel to western Europe?

The Iraqi invasion will continue to develop in the American narrative as the worst-to-date of all our foreign policy initiatives.


----------



## Too Tall (May 28, 2012)

zeke said:


> > If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, Saddam used a lot more chemical weapons on the Iranians during the war with them than he did on the Kurds.

We didn't invade him because he had not yet invaded Kuwait, and was not a threat to the rest of the middle east oil supply until then.

Here is a list of suppliers to Saddam:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraqs international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas
An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. 
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. 
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraqs chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. 
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Al Qaeda was there when we invaded
You have not answered one question except you were against the war
That is your right, but your claim that Saddam was the only reason we went there is not (all though it was a huge part)
Blair elaborates: 

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 

Even though Blair says it *later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. *

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 28, 2012)

JRK, put a cork in it.  No one is bothering to read your nonsense.


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell&#8217;s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden&#8217;s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaos&#8212;and ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war. 

In Baghdad, Tenet says, *Zarqawi&#8217;s cell found &#8220;a comfortable and secure environment&#8221; to funnel supplies and fighters to &#8220;up to two hundred&#8221; al Qaeda fighters who had relocated to camps in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq beginning in late 2001.* The camps were run by an al Qaeda affiliate named Ansar al Islam (AI), which would later play a significant role in the Iraqi insurgency. The CIA found that AI was experimenting with poisons on animals and, &#8220;in at least one case, on one of their own associates.&#8221;

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies

These facts remain UN reported by most because of the time line
Most of this was not confirmed until 2010


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



AQ wasn't the reason(s) for invading and occupying a sovereign nation.  Oil was one, Saddam was an excuse and the 'plan' to invade Iraq superseded the attack of 9-11.
See:

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Statement of Principles


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Wry Iraq was a serious issue I agree
The UN was helping them sell oil on the black market
Saddam was lying and did have munitions that were to have been destroyed including long range missiles found just prior to our invasion
But after 9-11 that changed and Yes part of our reason to remove Saddam was Al Qaeda in Iraq as stated before the UN 2/2003


----------



## JRK (May 28, 2012)

The scandal engulfing the United Nations' oil-for-food program is not just a tale of a few sticky-fingered U.N. bureaucrats on the take. The program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, authorized at least $69 billion in Iraqi oil sales, supposedly to fund the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian necessities for Iraqis suffering under U.N. economic sanctions. Oil-for-food was the largest humanitarian relief operation in United Nations history.

In the event, it was thoroughly subverted and defrauded. Saddam Hussein diverted billions of dollars from the program as U.N. administrators looked the other way while skimming off some of the proceeds for themselves.

Sen. Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, estimates that Saddam raked off $6.7 billion from the oil-for-food program, plus another $13.7 billion by selling oil on the black market. Whether, as many suspect, Saddam used some of these billions to, in effect, bribe members of the U.N. Security Council to loosen sanctions and oppose any military action against Iraq remains to be determined.

Coleman, a political moderate and a former prosecutor, says Annan should resign "because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch."

Kofi Annan's dysfunctional United Nations | The San Diego Union-Tribune


----------



## pwjohn (May 28, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yes you are missing something...They now export  3 million barrels of oil  per day...Some of which we receive here  on the west coast...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

JRK said:


> SNIP



Nobody is reading your massive spam of lies, JRK.


----------



## Luissa (May 29, 2012)

JRK said:


> Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.
> 
> Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaosand ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war.
> 
> ...


Please edit your post or I will. You know the copyright rules. Thanks


----------



## Luissa (May 29, 2012)

I couldn't post in red because of your insanely long post, and my iPhone. So please edit soon.


----------



## Too Tall (May 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The housing collapse and the the war worked together to damage the economy.
> 
> Please do not mistake conscription with the Guard and Reserve.  The Guard and Reserve were created for emergencies, local and regional and international, but not to the extent that the personnel were envisioned to serve two and more tours overseas over a period of years.  As an aside: a voluntary no-draft force gives the President a private military to do with as he pleases with little restraint by a Congress dominated by his own Party.
> 
> ...



Here is the mission of the National Guard that I served in for almost two years before going active duty.  You seem to think that Guardsmen should be treated differently than the regulars when they are activated.   That ain't the way it works!  Once activated, a Guardsman is a full time Soldier or Airman and is treated as such.  When the regulars are limited to one deployment, the Guardsmen will get the same limit.



> Administered by the National Guard Bureau (a joint bureau of the departments of the Army and Air Force), the National Guard consists of both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Air National Guard (ANG). Both Guards have a federal and state mission, resulting in *Guardsmen holding membership in both the National Guard of their state and in the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force.* The National Guard is organized into 54 separate entities: the 50 states, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
> *The National Guard's federal mission is to maintain well-trained, well-equipped units available for prompt mobilization during war* and provide assistance during national emergencies (such as natural disasters or civil disturbances). During peacetime, units carry out missions compatible with training, mobilization readiness, humanitarian and contingency operations.


 
Far less than half of Guardsmen were deployed more than once, and no one is forced to join the National Guard.  They are part of the All Volunteer Force maintained for the defense of the US. 



> In the decade of conflict that followed September 11, 2001,* 63 percent of the National Guardsmen deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have deployed once*, while 37 percent have deployed multiple times, according to National Guard Bureau data.



I suggest that there are any number of places in Europe that the Bush's could visit if they so desired.  England, Ireland and Germany come to mind.  And, GW Bush would not be arrested.

I am waiting for the outcome in Egypt and Syria to make a judgement of the worst foreign policy initiatives.  Israel's continued existence is at risk.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

Your attitude about Guard and Reserve duties, Too Tall, reveals much as to why the morale has plummetted and the effectives has been degraded in the last ten years.  Your imagination was not the intended purpose of the Guard and Reserve when organized.  Your statement is a classic of neo-con failure to understand the American world.

Voluntary enlistment does not mean part of the President's praetorian guard.  And take a real look and see where the senior bushies have traveled, how often, and when was the last time.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 29, 2012)

JRK said:


> It amazes me the liberal mind hates GWB but never mention the real terrorist
> Saddam killed millions
> tortured the same
> OBL attacked this country for no other reason than to kill and maim
> ...



With US Support Saddams war against Iran cost millions of Arab lives.

While having US support Saddam Gasses Halabja.  Reagan opposes sanctions.

OBL announced his reasons for declaring Jihad against the West.  Just to kill and maim is not listed as one of his reasons.  The results of our various interventions in the ME are mentioned.  Iraq did not provide support for 9-11 nor did they provide cover for escaping al Queda operatives after we invaded Afghanistan as most went to Pakistan.

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been a failure on many levels.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 29, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for admitting there were no WMDs.
> ...



Let me clear ups your misconceptions.

Saddam was boxed in.  Had not rebuilt his conventional army, did not reconsitute his WMD programs.  Did not particpate in 9-11 and offered no succor to al Queda operatives fleeing Afghanistan.

Most of the sub prime loan that failed were made by private lenders not because of the CRA.

Energy prodution(crude oil) under President Obama is increasing.  

The UN is not allowing Iran to have Nukes.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 29, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > > If Bush lied to the American People about WMD, then What were the Democrats telling US about WMD in Iraq between 1996 and leading up to the invasion in 2003?
> ...



Most of which would not have been sold to Iraq if it was on the list of nations who supported terrorist.

Wonder how much of the 4 billion in loans the US (taxpayers) gave Saddam was use to purchase the above items.


----------



## Too Tall (May 29, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



If that is true, why were you blaming the US for selling precursors to Saddam?  All of our allies were and in a lot larger quantities. 

That would be the mythical $4 billion that Saddam never did get.

You believe all of the other Bush haters made up crap don't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.


----------



## Too Tall (May 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your attitude about Guard and Reserve duties, Too Tall, reveals much as to why the morale has plummetted and the effectives has been degraded in the last ten years.  Your imagination was not the intended purpose of the Guard and Reserve when organized.  Your statement is a classic of neo-con failure to understand the American world.
> 
> Voluntary enlistment does not mean part of the President's praetorian guard.  And take a real look and see where the senior bushies have traveled, how often, and when was the last time.



I was in the Guard for two years and that was not in my imagination.  I did get the previous quote from this web site if you are interested in the real world.

\http://www.arng.army.mil/SiteCollec...ets/ARNG_Factsheet_May_06 ARNG fact Sheet.pdf

And, your uneducated remark about the President's praetorian guard is absurd on its face.  Do you really want a list of all of the Democrats that voted for the war and were commenting for several years about Saddam WMD's?  I do have them on file.

Actually, you are a Bush hater and should be ashamed of your self.

Do you have any comments on the current administration's tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan?

Here is a quote that might interest you and would certainly affect troop morale.  The date of this report is August 16,2010.  It is now almost 2 years later.



> 575. That&#8217;s how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama became President at noon on January 20, 2009, according to the icasualties.org website, which tracks U.S. soldiers&#8217; deaths using reports received from the Department of Defense &#8212; and which is widely cited in the media as a source of information on U.S. deaths.
> 
> According to the same website, 575 is also the number of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Afghanistan war during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
> 
> Therefore, total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have doubled in Afghanistan under President Obama, and when the next U.S. soldier is reported dead, the majority of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan will have occurred under President Obama.


----------



## Too Tall (May 29, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.



But, but, but Jake, you said Iraq was not on the list of nations that supported terrorists.  Is there a double standard for the US as compared to all of our allies?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 29, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.
> ...



But, but, but, Too Tall, we think the we have a double standard, don't we?

Invading Iraq was the stupidest foreign policy this country has made since we tried to invade Canada in 1812, and they kicked our ass three times, and took an entire enemy captive.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 29, 2012)

The Iraq war was a complete and total failure for the following reasons:

Spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars with no direct benefit in return for average American's.
Completely trashed our reputation around the world.
Violated our Constitution, American heritage and the principles this country was founded upon.


----------



## JRK (May 29, 2012)

loinboy said:


> The Iraq war was a complete and total failure for the following reasons:
> 
> Spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars with no direct benefit in return for average American's.
> Completely trashed our reputation around the world.
> Violated our Constitution, American heritage and the principles this country was founded upon.



No return?
we closed a base in Saudi as well as numerous ones in Kuwait. We also cut funding to the UN that over a 10 year period I am sure was substantial as was closing the bases as fore mentioned
In No-one knows what else would have come from Saddam as well as Al Qaeda being allowed to continue there path as they were prior to the invasion

It amazes mt this reputation argument when we had 33 countries helped us enforce the terms of surrender Saddam ignored until 2003

Constitution?
Exactly what part of the Constitution was ignored? In fact the constitution was followed to the tee
To defend this country is the most important thing our constitution
Congress voted for the very thing we did, enforce UN regulations and to remove Al Qaeda from Iraq (which Al Qaeda where there it was confirmed in 2010)

You Liberals where lied to by your leadership. I will never forgive them for it.
Neither should you


----------



## JRK (May 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.
> ...



It was to old I guess to edit
I will not allow it to happen again
I actually thought it was okay, there was no intent for harm
If you can edit it go ahead
Sorry


----------



## JRK (May 29, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because, Too Tall, we should not have sold the precursors, much of what was done under Reagan's people,.
> ...



I have Jake in Ignore, for some reason he has a hate for me and the truth it became to much to put up with. I actually feel sorry for him
He will do the same to you in time

RR had absolutely nothing to do with Kuwait and ignoring the terms of surrender Saddam Agreed to
RR had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda setting up base in 2002
RR had nothing to do with Saddam killing millions
torturing millions
RR was not part of any of these events. Saddam brought this on to his people and his self, right by his self


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 30, 2012)

poor JRK.  he thinks folks hate him, when instead they are laughing at him.

RR's admin supported Saddam and JRK was fine with it at the time


----------



## Mac1958 (May 30, 2012)

.

Look, folks, the fact is that the neocons have absolutely no choice:  They *HAVE* to spin this disaster into something positive.  They* HAVE* to avoid admitting the horrific costs of the wars.   They *HAVE *to avoid the fact that the American people were sold on the "knowledge" that Saddam had WMD's and that their use on us was imminent.  

These people have no choice, they are strict ideologues, and they must do everything they can to protect their ideology from its own failures.  As I've said to another partisan ideologue here, I can pretend that lemons are purple all day long.   That's the problem with protecting an ideology from the facts:  It's dishonest.  Ideologues have to lie.

They *HAVE* to support the horror and damage their policies caused.  It's what ideologues *do.*

.


----------



## zeke (May 30, 2012)

> No return?
> we closed a base in Saudi as well as numerous ones in Kuwait. We also cut funding to the UN that over a 10 year period I am sure was substantial as was closing the bases as fore mentioned



And everyone knows you can't close a military base unless you start a war. Right?




> To defend this country is the most important thing our constitution




daymum and here I thought we were supposed to be attacked by another country before we started defending ourselves. Where in the COTUS does it call for pre emptive war?


----------



## zeke (May 30, 2012)

> Look, folks, the fact is that the neocons have absolutely no choice: They HAVE to spin this disaster into something positive. They HAVE to avoid admitting the horrific costs of the wars. They HAVE to avoid the fact that the American people were sold on the "knowledge" that Saddam had WMD's and that their use on us was imminent.
> 
> These people have no choice, they are strict ideologues, and they must do everything they can to protect their ideology from its own failures. As I've said to another partisan ideologue here, I can pretend that lemons are purple all day long. That's the problem with protecting an ideology from the facts: It's dishonest. Ideologues have to lie.
> 
> They HAVE to support the horror and damage their policies caused. It's what ideologues do.




Very well said. And unfortunately true.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 30, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



The Western allies were allowed to sell to Iraq after President Reagan took Iraq off the list.

Not a big student of History are you?

By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers.

A similar taxpayer-funded, though smaller scale, scam operated under the auspices of the federal Export-Import Bank. In 1984, vice-president George Bush senior personally intervened to ensure that the bank guaranteed loans to Iraq of $500 million to build an oil pipeline. Export-Import Bank loan guarantees grew from $35 million in 1985 to $267 million by 1990.

According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 "the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application 

"The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witchs brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## BlindBoo (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq war was a complete and total failure for the following reasons:
> ...



Again you spouting half truths.  Al Queda's only presence in Iraq was in the northern Free-Kurdish area.  There was no operational co-operation between Saddam and al Queda.  Saddam may have been an evil person but he was not stupid.  He did not allow al Queda into his country and he didn't give them santuary like Pakistan did.

By ignoring the ongoing UN process via SCR 1441 President Bush not only disregarded our obligation as a signer of that resolution but also did not satisfy the justification section of the Joint Resolution passed by Congress.

After 20 yeasr of war and nearly 10 years of crippling sanctions, Iraq did not pose a significant threat to the worlds remaining super power.

Still I don't forgive the Democrats for voting to give up their constitutional responsiblity.  They should have all resigned (well those who voted for it).  They are a disgrace.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If it wasn't for the support of RR, Saddam would have met his end likely at the hands of his own people.  Millions of young Arab conscripts were killed needlessly because RR thought it was in our best interest to prolong the war.  RR sold weapons to both sides in that war.  You can't ignore the past.  Let me rephrase that.  You shouldn't ignore the past......


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 30, 2012)

RR, Rumsfeld, and that group of ignornuts were responsible for SH remaining in power, leaving the problem to fester until it became much worse.  And thus it came to pass in the Third Year of the Reign of George the Younger the downfall of the economy and the military and the culture of America began.


----------



## jack113 (May 30, 2012)

The tea tarty anti Americans do not deal in facts and have no conception of what their hate messaging does to innocent people. Over one and a half million innocent people were murdered by Bush st steal a "sea of oil."

Husein could have put bush in Gitmo for the rest of his treasonous life with the information he had on Bush selling him classified information on how to create biological weapons. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many more PNAC writers deserve the death of a traitor and some day will get what they deserve. Bush and murder go together like peanut butter and jelly. 

The brain dead GOP will support Bush until they die just because they have no agenda except hate and misery for their own people.

Bush= National Guard deserter

Bush= mass murder

Bush/Rove/Cheney= outing CIA agents

Bush= never voted into office, placed into office by daddies supreme court

Bush= failed drug test by National Guard

Bush= still supports his Nazi family ties to Hitler


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> No return?


No direct benefit to average American's.  How did you benefit from these wars?  I know my life is not better because of it.



JRK said:


> we closed a base in Saudi as well as numerous ones in Kuwait.


So what!  We still have over 800 bases around the world.  How the hell does our military protect us, when they're not physically in the country they're defending?



JRK said:


> We also cut funding to the UN that over a 10 year period I am sure was substantial as was closing the bases as fore mentioned


Why is cutting funding to the UN a good thing?



JRK said:


> In No-one knows what else would have come from Saddam as well as Al Qaeda being allowed to continue there path as they were prior to the invasion


What path?  Hussein wasn't doing shit and al Qaeda was in some other country.  This comparison between Iraq and al Qaeda has been thoroghly debunked.  Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies.  If what you said was true, it would be the first time in history, that a religous fundamentalist, had joined forces with a secular dictator.



JRK said:


> It amazes mt this reputation argument when we had 33 countries helped us enforce the terms of surrender Saddam ignored until 2003


They were already enforcing the terms of 1441.  No UN report had said Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions.  There was absolutely no reason to rush into a war.



JRK said:


> Constitution?
> Exactly what part of the Constitution was ignored? In fact the constitution was followed to the tee


Article 51 of the UN Charter.  It states there is only 2 ways a country can legally attack another country and we satisfied neither.



JRK said:


> To defend this country is the most important thing our constitution


No it isn't!  Enforcing the rule of law is most important.  Once that is stopped, everything is stopped.  We are no longer American's.  Just look at what has happened since 9/11.  One of our founding principals was that a person is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty".  Now you can be indefinately detained with no charges.

Where do you see "indefinate detention" in the Constitution?



JRK said:


> Congress voted for the very thing we did, enforce UN regulations and to remove Al Qaeda from Iraq (which Al Qaeda where there it was confirmed in 2010)


Al Qaeda didn't come into Iraq until after the invasion.  



JRK said:


> You Liberals where lied to by your leadership. I will never forgive them for it.
> Neither should you


What was the lie?

I'll tell you what a lie is...

...it's Bush telling reporters that one of the justifications for attacking Iraq was Hussein barring UN inspectors from the country.  The problem with that was, at the time he said it, UN inspectors were driving around Iraq in white vans.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Again you spouting half truths.  Al Queda's only presence in Iraq was in the northern Free-Kurdish area.  There was no operational co-operation between Saddam and al Queda.  Saddam may have been an evil person but he was not stupid.  He did not allow al Queda into his country and he didn't give them santuary like Pakistan did.
> 
> By ignoring the ongoing UN process via SCR 1441 President Bush not only disregarded our obligation as a signer of that resolution but also did not satisfy the justification section of the Joint Resolution passed by Congress.
> 
> ...


I've always felt this _"Saddam was a bad guy, so we had to take him out" _argument, doesn't wash.  Because we knew he was a bad guy 20 years before, when we were selling him arms to fight the Iranian's.  If that was a valid argument, we would've taken him out then.

Instead, we got this...


----------



## georgephillip (May 30, 2012)

buckeye45_73 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for admitting there were no WMDs.
> ...


Sorry.
What broke the economy was an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004 with 80% of the crime originating with lenders. *Wall Street did it, Stupid.* You're a real credit to the conservative "trickle down" morality that kills other people's children for money and steals other peoples' houses for market share. Maybe you should get off your knees and stop worshiping rich parasites who don't exist without eternal war and endless debt?


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

jack113 said:


> The tea tarty anti Americans do not deal in facts and have no conception of what their hate messaging does to innocent people. Over one and a half million innocent people were murdered by Bush st steal a "sea of oil."
> 
> Husein could have put bush in Gitmo for the rest of his treasonous life with the information he had on Bush selling him classified information on how to create biological weapons. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many more PNAC writers deserve the death of a traitor and some day will get what they deserve. Bush and murder go together like peanut butter and jelly.
> 
> ...



Jack GWB never deserted anything
Never murdered any-one
He was voted into Office as legal as the day is long in 2000 and 2004
Drug test? Hitler

Those are not even items that I will comment on. Dude get real, get a life
What the hell all this other stuff is, is childish


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

loinboy said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Again you spouting half truths.  Al Queda's only presence in Iraq was in the northern Free-Kurdish area.  There was no operational co-operation between Saddam and al Queda.  Saddam may have been an evil person but he was not stupid.  He did not allow al Queda into his country and he didn't give them santuary like Pakistan did.
> ...



What does any of that have to do with invading Kuwait?
Killing millions of Iraqis?
Ignoring the terms of surrender?

You liberals blow me away with this spin that has nothing to do with Al Qaeda being in Iraq in 2002
It has nothing to do with the UN accurately reporting 1-27-2003 that Saddam still had 6500 munitions with banned material in there war heads (we ended up finding over 500 of them after we invaded)

Saddam was more than evil
The region was becoming another hide out for Al Qaeda
No-one wanted violence. No-one profited from these events
It was as we say a necessary evil we had no choice in doing


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > No return?
> ...



You have a link of those 850 bases?
That sounds like allot to me. The UN cost is money
Indefinite detention? There POW's. what would you have us  do with them?
Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, I can find no better reason than to invade and as we did now
Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case. 

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal. 

Even though Blair says it later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations. 

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Ab*u Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*
Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

UN inspectors had left, there was confusion as to the reason but the was no confusion as to why there where let back in

Look Hans Blix made a speech on 1-27-2003 that was followed days later bt Colin Powell stating about the same except that Al Qaeda was there and setting there defenses up 

Blix made the case to go to war better than any-one
read the transcript for your self

Update 27 January 2003
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 30, 2012)

The neo-con skunk returns to spread his stink on the Bush years.


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

Jake
no-one cares what you say
Your have for over 3000 posts attacked me and not one time did you say anything about the troops

I put you on ignore twice.No-one has anything to say to you Jake


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> Jake
> no-one cares what you say
> Your have for over 3000 posts attacked me and not one time did you say anything about the troops
> 
> I put you on ignore twice.No-one has anything to say to you Jake



You can't prove that.  Now you lie.  You are a skunk.  I don't care whether you have me on ignore; you will continue to be wrongly defending a criminal administration.

I honored a veteran today on the Board, as a matter of fact.  And I will not cheapen my own service by discussing it with likes of you.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 30, 2012)

.

Evidently some people are willing to defend paying $20 for a $4 gallon of milk.

They don't seem to comprehend the cost/benefit side of things.  They ignore the costs.  They don't WANT to know the costs.

If only my analogy were about milk, instead of American blood and lives and minds and families.

.


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

Mac I do not talk to any-one who dis respects our military
I do not have anything else to say


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> You have a link of those 850 bases?
> That sounds like allot to me.


That is a lot!



> _II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations
> 
> The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the *US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide. *
> 
> ...


I would close almost all of those bases, unless the country having them, pays for all expenses in running it.



JRK said:


> Indefinite detention? There POW's. what would you have us  do with them?


I'm not talking about POW's, I'm talking about US citizens.



JRK said:


> Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, I can find no better reason than to invade and as we did now


You can only invade if you yourself was attacked, or you receive authorization from the UNSC.  We were not attacked by Iraq, nor did we receive UNSC authorization.  Therefore, the invasion was illegal.



JRK said:


> Blairs testimony directly contradicts the Democrats. Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.


Blair is a convicted war criminal.



JRK said:


> Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.


Are you referring to DOCEX?  That has been completely debunked and when it was made public, the government made the unusual disclaimer of saying _"they take no responsibility as to it's authenticity."_



JRK said:


> Even though Blair says it later emerged that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawis network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.


There was never any evidence of a cooperative relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda.  If you got some, let's see it!



JRK said:


> Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powells presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Ab*u Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Ladens deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.*
> Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard


That doesn't show a connection with the Hussein government.  And besides, you can't invade a country, just because they harbor terrorists.  We harbor Louis Posada.  He's a terrorist. He put a bomb on a plane that killed 73 Cuban's. Should we be invaded by Cuba?



JRK said:


> UN inspectors had left, there was confusion as to the reason but the was no confusion as to why there where let back in


Bush said _*they weren't in *_Iraq, while _*they were in *_Iraq!  You, yourself, just confirmed this, with your preceding statement.  Bush lied, people died!



JRK said:


> Look Hans Blix made a speech on 1-27-2003 that was followed days later bt Colin Powell stating about the same except that Al Qaeda was there and setting there defenses up


Actually, it was March 27, but let's not split hairs.

However, Blix doesn't say what you claim he said.  Actually, he indicated the opposite.





> _Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation
> 
> As I noted on the 14th of February, *intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. *The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.
> 
> Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment.* No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found*._


So intelligence authorities say Iraq has mobile launchers for WMD's, Blix said no such launchers have been found.  Moral of the story, don't take intelligence from coke-heads (Curveball).

Here's another debunked claim by Blix regarding  intelligence authorities statements  on  Iraq using underground facilities.


> _*There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. *Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations.* No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far*._


Once again, no evidence found.  That's not a reason to go to war.



JRK said:


> Blix made the case to go to war better than any-one
> read the transcript for your self
> 
> Update 27 January 2003
> www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing


 Here's your link!






Page not found!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 30, 2012)

JRK disrespects our military every time he opens his mouth.  I bet he has been permanently banned from our bases, ports, and fields.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Sorry.
> What broke the economy was an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004 with 80% of the crime originating with lenders. *Wall Street did it, Stupid.* You're a real credit to the conservative "trickle down" morality that kills other people's children for money and steals other peoples' houses for market share. Maybe you should get off your knees and stop worshiping rich parasites who don't exist without eternal war and endless debt?


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the derrivitive bubble got up to 181 times the collective GNP of all the nations in the world.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > The tea tarty anti Americans do not deal in facts and have no conception of what their hate messaging does to innocent people. Over one and a half million innocent people were murdered by Bush st steal a "sea of oil."
> ...


 Bush deserter afganastan and stopped looking for bin laden so like always you are a retard


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac I do not talk to any-one who dis respects our military
> I do not have anything else to say



Correction you have nothign intellgent to say


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> ]
> 
> What does any of that have to do with invading Kuwait?
> Killing millions of Iraqis?
> ...


If no one wanted violence, then why didn't we let UN inspectors _*"stay their coarse"*_ and_* "finish their mission"*_?

And you're completely full of shit on what we found after we invaded.  We found nothing!  If we had found WMD's there, after everything that has been said on that subject, there would've been this headline on every newspaper in the world:

"WMD's 
FOUND!"​


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK disrespects our military every time he opens his mouth.  I bet he has been permanently banned from our bases, ports, and fields.


I wonder how he feels about IVAW or Veteran's for Peace, both of whom object to the Iraq war and both are former vets.


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK disrespects our military every time he opens his mouth.  I bet he has been permanently banned from our bases, ports, and fields.
> ...



Let me make this simple
you want to debate the war? Fine
you want to slander who I am?
That is not going to happen
People have a right to speak there opinions, this would be what those Vets went to war for

I find it amazing that the liberal uses these groups for there cause and ignore the millions who go on about there business and ask no-one for any funds

Objecting to the Iraq war is every-ones right

Slandering your fellow Americans name is not. This thread was started to tell the side of the story the press never told
At no time have I said anything bad about any-one who dis agrees with me
I just post factual information

Weapons were found
The UN stated the same things every-one else did
Saddam lied, he killed million (a fact you ignore when you speak of crimes)
Al Qaeda was n Iraq before 2003
The Info you used of the UN was after the 1-27-2003, when Hans Blix realized the truth was going to allow the 34 countries to remove Saddam

You want to debate the facts, you want to pretend that the 100s of thousands of young men ans women who volunteered to fight these wars do not exist will not change that fact

You ask me how I feel about a hand full of those vets wanting peace? 
Why would I want anything else?

You might want to start with those who started this mess
Saddam Hussein
OBL

not the US 
NO-ONE has been charged with any war crimes but Saddam and OBL
they both got justice


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

Update 27 January 2003
from the link
Even Iraq&#8217;s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January* does not lead us to the resolution of these issues*. 
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
 Thus, *there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs*.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes
This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, *at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions*.
i*nspectors have found *at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas 
precursor.
There are strong indications that *Iraq produced more anthrax* than it declared, 
*What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq,* that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.


----------



## Too Tall (May 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My apologies, I had no idea that your adoration of Saddam Hussein and hatred of George Bush went to that extreme.  

Iraq was in material breach of a cease fire from Gulf War I that was approved by the UN, the Congress and most of the countries in the region that formed a coalition under GHW Bush.  He was given ample time to come clean.  He didn't, end of cease fire and eventually, Saddam.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> Let me make this simple
> you want to debate the war? Fine
> you want to slander who I am?
> That is not going to happen
> People have a right to speak there opinions, this would be what those Vets went to war for.


I have not said anything about you personally, except for you being FOS, on claiming the finding of WMD's.



JRK said:


> I find it amazing that the liberal uses these groups for there cause and ignore the millions who go on about there business and ask no-one for any funds.


I like to stay within the context of the discussion.  I have no intention of discussing everything under the sun in one conversation.



JRK said:


> Objecting to the Iraq war is every-ones right.


 At least we agree on that.



JRK said:


> Slandering your fellow Americans name is not. This thread was started to tell the side of the story the press never told
> At no time have I said anything bad about any-one who dis agrees with me.


Which is appreciated, thank you for your diplomacy.



JRK said:


> I just post factual information.


Of the information you posted, it did not prove your claim.  There is still information you haven't posted, that I'm still waiting on.



JRK said:


> Weapons were found
> The UN stated the same things every-one else did.


This happens to be part of the information I'm still waiting for you to post.



JRK said:


> Saddam lied, he killed million (a fact you ignore when you speak of crimes).


No one is saying Hussein wasn't a bad guy.



JRK said:


> Al Qaeda was n Iraq before 2003.


Not as a guest of the government.



JRK said:


> The Info you used of the UN was after the 1-27-2003, when Hans Blix realized the truth was going to allow the 34 countries to remove Saddam.


So Hans Blix statement in January was the truth and his statement in March was a lie?  Why am I not surprized you'd say that?



JRK said:


> You want to debate the facts, you want to pretend that the 100s of thousands of young men ans women who volunteered to fight these wars do not exist will not change that fact.


This is irrelevant.  I've never said anything of the kind.  But all the people I've met who were vets said the main reason for joining was the GI Bill.  Not so they could go kill brown people with imunity.



JRK said:


> You ask me how I feel about a hand full of those vets wanting peace?
> Why would I want anything else?.


Because you argue the opposite.  You go to war because you have to.  Because you have no other choice.  It is a last resort.  We still had options in Iraq.  We could of let the inspectors do their job and finish their mission.  Again, there was no reason to rush into war that killed over a million Iraqi's and made over 4.5 million homeless.



JRK said:


> You might want to start with those who started this mess
> Saddam Hussein
> OBL
> 
> ...


WARNING: HERE COMES A PERSONAL ATTACK!

Your statement above, shows how irresponsible you are, by blaming others for your actions.  WE decided to go to war.  That was OUR decision.  Don't blame anyone else but US!


----------



## Too Tall (May 30, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> NCLB has been a monstrostiy, and never should have been enacted: both parties at fault for that.
> 
> The Iraqi has been economically and philosophically a fiasco: illegal, unsustainable, and eventually a failure as Iran allies with Iraq.  We had every choice, and we made the wrong one.  Any conservative or Hard Right will agree with that.



George Bush is responsible for reaching across the aisle to Ted Kennedy and then signing into law the NCLB bill that Kennedy wrote and pushed through Congress.

Now ain't that a pisser!


----------



## JRK (May 30, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



In addition it was confirmed that Al Qaeda had began to man-up in 2002 as was presented to the UN By Colin Powell
Your spot on
There was no more to these events than Saddam had used his last ace. After 9-11 We made it clear

Claiming that GWB and T Blair along with the other 32 countries that assisted us in removing The terror groups in Iraq are criminals while ignoring those who killed, maimed, tortured, raped and brought terror to the middle east is a form of denial I cannot and refuse to try and understand


----------



## Billo_Really (May 30, 2012)

JRK said:


> Update 27 January 2003
> from the link
> Even Iraqs letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January* does not lead us to the resolution of these issues*.
> The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
> ...


None of that constitutes WMD's and none of that indicates their mission was completed.


Here is the   jist of Blix's statement to the UN...



> _From your link...
> *Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC*_


----------



## Mac1958 (May 31, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> Evidently some people are willing to defend paying $20 for a $4 gallon of milk.
> 
> They don't seem to comprehend the cost/benefit side of things.  They ignore the costs.  They don't WANT to know the costs.
> 
> If only my analogy were about milk, instead of American blood and lives and minds and families..





JRK said:


> Mac I do not talk to any-one who dis respects our military
> I do not have anything else to say






Take a good, close look, folks.  JRK thinks I'm disrespecting our military.  Every last damn one of my posts has been about the pain and horror and loss of our soldiers, their families and their children, something that JRK has chosen to ignore and avoid.
*
Ignore and avoid.*

I can certainly understand why you have nothing else to say, JRK.  You are absolutely delusional.

You may "love our military", JRK, but you clearly don't give A DAMN about *the people in it.*

.


----------



## theliq (May 31, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Yep a BRAIN.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2012)

I supposedly adore SH and hate GWB because I tell the truth about the stupidest foreign policy decision by American since 1812 when the Canadians (Canada!~) kicked our asses for invading it.

History will not remember the bushies and Iraq favorably at all,


----------



## zeke (May 31, 2012)

> Quote: Originally Posted by JRK
> You might want to start with those who started this mess
> Saddam Hussein
> OBL
> ...




This has become standard Rethug spin; Saddam made us attack him. Bad bad Saddam.

Don't rethugs EVER own up to their decisions? Ever?


and Lionboy, nice job on the presenting of facts. and refuting of bull shit.


----------



## theliq (May 31, 2012)

zeke said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by JRK
> > You might want to start with those who started this mess
> > Saddam Hussein
> > OBL
> ...



Saddam Made Us Attack Him....You to are Missing your BRAIN..What SHIT YOU SPEAK!!!!!!

theliq


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...


That nut on top of your head controls the pitch, of your single, flapping, right-wing:

1.  Remove Saddam, so WHAT!  Saddam was a CIA client, since 1958.  Kindly notice who the other CIA client was, who GW Bush went after, who Obama's Seals caught up to, but so WHAT!  The US is an ally of Turkey, where Sunni Islam originated, so the US supports Sunni tyrants over Shiite majorities, like Saddam in Iraq and the King of Bahrain.  GHW Bush got cold feet on the road to Basra, setting up Saddam, for cottage-tyrant GW Bush, who enlisted a lying, Iraqi informant, to bolster the GW, Rummy, Cheney, and Halliburton media, in favor of shooting Iraq up with depleted uranium, while playing with sectarians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
'Curveball,' Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, Iraqi Informant: I'm Proud My WMD Lies Led To Iraq War
2.  Are you a known idiot?  The Russians support Shiites, since they hate the Turks, the US supports Sunnis, as ally of Turkey, but then came Sunnis in Al Queda.  Nothing is stable, just because GW decided to go after two targets, to make a point to Sunnis, which was as stupid as Clinton shooting cruise-missiles in all directions, after the embassy bombings, only GW is known for 'nukuler'-sized stupidity, to pass Clinton, who signed deregulation of energy, courts, and banks, and the banks got bailed by the second-chimpiest President;
3.  A republic was born of these events, which started back when the CIA and MI6 supported the rise to power of the Shah, 1953.  The CIA support of Saddam was likely linked to US support for Sunnis, to piss off the Shiites, which keeps balance to any plan, to start a war or three.  The US shot the whole place up with D.U., we are in debt, the Democrats passed Obamacare, they spank it in a circle with Republicans, and they tried to pass biomass research, which lost in 2012, AFTER they lost the US House, 2010.  We need another republic, over here, with equal rights and equal protection, of the laws.  But nooo!


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 31, 2012)

The way to know that the Iraq war is a failure to look at who the conservatives try to blame for going to war in the first place.

Whenever anyone brings up the fact that Bush started the war, you inevitably get a stampede of responses from conservatives pointing out all the Democrats who voted for the war.

If those conservatives thought the war was a success, they'd never be giving Democrats credit for agreeing with Bush.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 31, 2012)

Where is Saddam Jr. so we can find him and set him back up in power?


----------



## Billo_Really (May 31, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Whenever anyone brings up the fact that Bush started the war, you inevitably get a stampede of responses from conservatives pointing out all the Democrats who voted for the war.


Regime change in Iraq, officially began in 1993, with the letter the PNAC sent to President Clinton.  Obviously, Bill disagreed with PNAC authors to invade Iraq, but then "the shrub" hit the scene and we all know what followed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Where is Saddam Jr. so we can find him and set him back up in power?



There in rests the failue of the peace after the US won the war.

Iraq continues to drift closer to Iran while he suppresses the Sunni opposition,


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 31, 2012)

If we had not invaded Iraq,

what reasonable believable scenarios, supported by good logic and evidence, can any of you construct that would make a good case that we would be _worse _off now,

all things considered, than we are?

That's how you would measure the success or failure of the Iraq war.


----------



## JRK (May 31, 2012)

zeke said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by JRK
> > You might want to start with those who started this mess
> > Saddam Hussein
> > OBL
> ...



What BS was refuted?
And 29 dems in the senate voted to enforce the terms of surrender
Nothing has been refuted


----------



## JRK (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Curveball?
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
*The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2012)

JRK continues his fail on the Boaed.

The invasion was unnecessary, was not sanctioned by the UN, was illegal, and did not result in a reconstituted ME in harmony with the USA.  It led to a huge deficit, injured the economy, and the rejection of neo-con thuggery in politics.

He has not carried one single point as women are forced back into sharia submission and Iraq drifts into alliance with Iran,

JRK should never be allowed to in the presence of our military,


----------



## JRK (May 31, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Let me make this simple
> ...



Dude the info your "waiting" to post is on this page
Update 27 January 2003
from the link
Even Iraqs letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues. 
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes
This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas 
precursor.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, 
What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

The UN made claims of 6500  WMDs misssing
rockets FOUND
Thiodiglycol as noted FOUND
anthrax
nerve gas
Obvious to any-one who takes there blinders off Saddam was lying and was never going to adhere to the terms he agreed to when he surrendered in 91
In addition It had been confirmed that Al Qaeda was there in 2002 recently 

What else is there?
550 metric tons of "yellow cake"

My god what else do you want?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2012)

None of which, JRK, has anything to do with what the bushies were talking about.

If so, they would have yelled it from the rooftops, instead of you squeaking it from the mouse hole,.


----------



## JRK (May 31, 2012)

theliq said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



Well that was original
Stay up all night on that one?
Jake help you?
Chill out dude, mean people suck


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 31, 2012)

JRK is squeaking.


----------



## theliq (May 31, 2012)

JRK said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Your on a hiding to nothing here JRK,for the simple fact that the reasons the Americans invaded was on a false premis,they effectively found nothing,left the nation in a schism,looted oil(the main reason to go to War,as Saddam was negotiating oil exports in euros and not US dollars)....and I note here much of Iraqs antiquities were for sale within 7days of the defeat of Saddam in Yes, New York.

Was and has it been worth US military and Iraqi DEATHS and MAIMINGS....NO.

They did find a milking machine,they tried to suggest was a rocket launcher !!!!! and assumed wrongly that Saddam was purchasing Yellow Cake from Mali of all places!!!!!

The weapons inspectors found nothing prior or since........it was yet another slice of American Madness...and NO Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and never entertained Bin Laden.

All in all,a monumental failure.theliq by the way the chemicals you mention were all supplied by the US,Britain and France.What the US did do was illegaly invade a Soverign Nation.

So it follows that it's OK to invade the US,with no repercussions by any hostile nation,I have not started on rendition and murders.

A Failure.....it was and is moreover the US attempted to turn an educated nation into SWINE,such was their corrupt commentary prior to and after invasion.

But in the end it was Bush and his Cohorts who were found to be corrupt and a pack of liars.So much for your statement "You had no choice",feed yourself enough BULLSHIT J and you become what you eat.........in this case BULLSHIT


----------



## Billo_Really (May 31, 2012)

theliq said:


> ...looted oil(the main reason to go to War,as Saddam was negotiating oil exports in euros and not US dollars)....


That's a fact not too many people talk about.

Sanctions on Iraq that had prevented them for selling oil on the open market, were about to be lifted and the last thing they were going to do with their 4th largest reserve, was sell it to the US.

So we went in there to find out why they had_* "our oil", *_under _*"their sand"!*_


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 31, 2012)

Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???

I'm sure NPR, msnbc, kooks like you could find info for your bullshit claims.

Come on kook, Buuuuuuuush is making millions off Iraqi oil is your start. 



loinboy said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > ...looted oil(the main reason to go to War,as Saddam was negotiating oil exports in euros and not US dollars)....
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 31, 2012)

Strange that Clinton and algore made it US policy for regime change in Iraq...in 1998. 

Let's see, did "chickenhawks" take control of his brain? Maybe they blackmailed him into doing it with stained women's underwear to show the media, eh kook.



loinboy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever anyone brings up the fact that Bush started the war, you inevitably get a stampede of responses from conservatives pointing out all the Democrats who voted for the war.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (May 31, 2012)

When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels? 

You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler. 



JakeStarkey said:


> JRK continues his fail on the Boad.
> 
> The invasion was unnecessary, was not sanctioned by the UN, was illegal, and did not result in a reconstituted ME in harmony with the USA.  It led to a huge deficit, injured the economy, and the rejection of neo-con thuggery in politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billo_Really (May 31, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?


When Congress ratified Article 51 of the UN Charter, thus giving it the same weight as our Constitution, dumbass!


----------



## theliq (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???
> 
> I'm sure NPR, msnbc, kooks like you could find info for your bullshit claims.
> 
> ...




That's the trouble Bezerk,they only tell you what they think you need to know......well as an Australian,(we can spot a bullshitter from a mile away) Bush was at the time treating the world like Court Jesters but regrettably (and it was hard to watch) He and his Cohorts were treating the American People like Village Idiots and most lapped it up,incredibly.steve


----------



## theliq (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> 
> You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler.
> 
> ...



Very silly and immature comment.....you'll have to do a lot better than this,just saying.steve


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> 
> You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler.
> 
> ...


But Tardy, you didn't read the other posts, until somebody put up UN Res.51, did you.

Back a couple dozen pages, I posted how the CIA and MI6 put up the Shah's regime, and CIA support for Saddam started, in 1958.  All excessive US presence does is start the dictators, help them persist, and then the US egregiously bombs and shoots up with D.U.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

GB Tardy has difficulty reading, don't you know?  So he listens to Rush for his talking points.  But he has difficulty in remembering, too, what he heard.

So what is Tardy supposed to do?


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???
> 
> I'm sure NPR, msnbc, kooks like you could find info for your bullshit claims.
> 
> ...



That was the whole idea. Now we don't have to steal it because "we" OWN it!

"So if we own it then why aren't gas prices cheaper now in America," you may ask?

DUH!

Gas is NEVER going to be cheap again in America. The American investors who drove the U.S. government and the puppets in power at the time into invading Iraq aren't anymore interested in giving their profits away for any "good of the nation" than the Saudi Royal Family or Hugo Chavez!

In addition to having the Iraqi puppet government in the United States' back pocket we now have a HUGE military footprint in Iraq (in the form of four sprawling military bases)  from which we can launch tactical nuclear strikes anywhere in the southeastern hemisphere without the need for those pesky, easily detected ICBM's!

Soon ALL the oil in the world will be OURS and we will be RICH! FILTHY RICH!!!!

Well....maybe not US or the nation.....but SOMEBODY will be lol!

Don't look for them to spread the wealth to you though through cheaper gas.....or cheaper anything really!

All they need from you is your blind unflinching support and a firm grasp on your ankles!


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> 
> You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler.
> 
> ...



Don't be a butt nutt!

Think about what you are saying dude!

You can't argue that the U.S. went to war in Iraq to protect women from Sharia law!

That's just ridiculous and insults everything our soldiers have died for!

Nor can you say that the U.S. is somehow "exempt" from the UN, the Geneva Conventions, OR the Nuremburg Tribunals.

You have to remember that WE have always been the most powerful signatory on ALL of these international laws!

In all of them.....WE have led the world.

What message does it send the rest of the world when WE break or just diss our OWN laws?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

The US went to Iraq, again, to prove to Sunnis, how GW Bush can count to two.

Two towers, two wars, against Iraq, two wars, going on at the same time, against Sunnis.

Problem is, GW and all the wingnuts in creation don't add their collective IQ to three.  They make up for the obvious lack of brains, with raw greed.


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

theliq said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > loinboy said:
> ...



Dude the info your "waiting" to post is on this page
Update 27 January 2003
from the link
Even Iraqs letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues. 
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes
This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas 
precursor.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, 
What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
*These are not my words*
*These Are HANS BLIX*
None in which you stated anything to rebut
I have no reason to lie

Saddam ignored terms of surrender
Congress after 9-11 supported enforcing those terms, and to remove Al Qaeda from Iraq
This including removing 550 metric tons of yellow cake took place. None of it occurs if Saddam never invades Kuwait and 9-11 along with millions losing there lives to these terrorist groups never lose there lives
A FACT you ignore while attacking the very people who stopped these mad men
Why?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK has continually spammed with material that has no merit and some outright falsehood,

One, the UN did not authorize the US to enforce UN resolutions, thus any such call turns the US action into a war crime action.

Two, the WMDs as described by the neo-cons did not exist, for if they did the Administration would have announced it from the rooftops of the Nation.

Three, the women of Iraq are being returned sharia oppression, including honor killings.

Four, Iraq moves closer to Iran on a daily basis,

Five, our position in the ME becomes more shaky each day.

Six, those like JRK who advocate for the war after the fact are as guilty of war crimes as were the fascist press in Germany and Italy during WWII,

JRK defends the worst foreign policy disaster in American history, which remembered as so in history books for the remainder of record narrative in human culture.


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> 
> You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler.
> 
> ...



Now, every Iraqi is free to vote or run for office, without closed door approval or fear of death. I*raqi women can vote, hold office, become a doctor, teacher, or any other occupation that will provide non suicidal dreams for her children. Iraqi sports teams can back the candidates of their choosing without losing the right to represent their country.*

Jake you talk of what right I have after that lie you just told about Iraqi women?

Iranian Protest: The True Success of Iraq |


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> ...



That same congress voted to use force to enforce UN regulations
SO it seems to me that event un-did the previous event

This is the good thing about congress and the representation of the will of the people

Weapons: found, UN regulations (Saddam term of surrender) fact
Oil for food black market UN supported: fact
Yellow cake: fact, removed 550 metric tons 2008
Al Qaeda: Fact, there in 2002. Confirmed in 2010

millions murdered, tortured, reaped, put in prisons with 0 due process and not one peep about that man, Saddam Hussein
29 out of 50 Democratic senators vote to use force to enforce Saddam's surrender terms
34 countries in all
100% of troops volunteered, THANK YOU
not one mention about none of this

WHY?
GWB is the bad guy in this?
the UN has a right to what? sell oil on the black market? 

All of this ignored


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

Now, every Iraqi is free to vote or run for office, without closed door approval or fear of death. Iraqi women can vote, hold office, become a doctor, teacher, or any other occupation that will provide non suicidal dreams for her children. Iraqi sports teams can back the candidates of their choosing without losing the right to represent their country.  Jake you talk of what right I have after that lie you just told about Iraqi women?

JRK has lost his mind.  Shi'ites are oppressing Sunni, who are murdering their oppressors.  Iraqi women in fact are being forced into sharia oppression, including honor killings.  JRK has no right to tell lies and dishonor are military heroes who have given life and limb for a failed cause.


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

Jake
Ignored 
That is all I have to say


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK has now put me on ignore (he really doesn't you know, I can tell) for the 9th time.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> That same congress voted to use force to enforce UN regulations SO it seems to me that event un-did the previous event
> 
> This is the good thing about congress and the representation of the will of the people
> 
> ...



Because, you lying piece of shit, no yellowcake was found, and GW Bush used a lying, Iraqi informant, to make his claim of WMDs.  Read earlier posts, or this, asshole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Iraqi Defector Admits To Lying About Saddam&#8217;s WMD Program

Saddam was a CIA client, since 1958.  Remember bin Laden?  CIA client.  Heard of Sunnis?  GW decided to screw with them, so he wanted to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, and ball-lickers like you bought any story GW and his goons cooked up.

You are stupid enough to ignore, but what would the purpose of this forum be, then?


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

Whats a matter Jake
no one will talk to you?
Now, every Iraqi is free to vote or run for office, without closed door approval or fear of death. Iraqi women can vote, hold office, become a doctor, teacher, or any other occupation that will provide non suicidal dreams for her children. Iraqi sports teams can back the candidates of their choosing without losing the right to represent their country.
Thank you troops and the 34 countries that allowed this to happen
Thank you


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > That same congress voted to use force to enforce UN regulations SO it seems to me that event un-did the previous event
> ...



Lying POS?
really?
you man enough to admit your wrong or are you just another Lib who calls grown men names for no reason?
lets see

Report: *Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret *... - Fox News
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376747,00.htmlJul 5, 2008  The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake"  the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment  was a significant step toward ...
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918Jun 29, 2006  *Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria,* Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 .
What exact lies are you talking about?
That would be strike one on the ignore list bud. You want to debate? go for it
Curve ball lied? maybe but that has nothing to do with the over 500 munitions found that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed, that is called not in compliance of the terms of surrender he agreed to
No yellow cake?
550 metric tons somehow got there


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

You liberals and your childish name calling blows me away. your not taken serious by any-one after your first name calling event
I have no idea who you people are and have nothing against you. I post factual information that is 100% from links. 
I really am amazed at that getting some-one into a 1st grade on the play ground childish rant
Wa Wa Wa


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK is a liar, pure and simple.

1) no WMDs were found as described by the Administration.  Any talk about yellow cake and other stuff, when read in full, one quickly realizes this is not what the Admin meant,

2) Iraqi women are being forced into sharia submission, including honor killings.

3) JRK shames our American military personnel every time he posts.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> ...



You should check into what Iraq looked like before the first gulf war and UN sanctions (mostly driven by the U.S.).

Great universities....medical facilities unmatched in the eastern hemisphere....a thriving economy....arts....literature.

Generally a pretty good quality of life for anybody!

Please.....don't give this crap about "women not being able to vote!"

Yeah sure....of course women should be allowed to vote!

So should the tens of thousands of disenfranchised inner city minority voters being PURGED from the rolls right now even as we speak in Florida and in cities all over the U.S. by powerful Republic interests!

Where's your similar outrage over them?

Universally agreed


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> You liberals and your childish name calling blows me away. your not taken serious by any-one after your first name calling event
> I have no idea who you people are and have nothing against you. I post factual information that is 100% from links.
> I really am amazed at that getting some-one into a 1st grade on the play ground childish rant
> Wa Wa Wa



Actually you seem perfectly suited to a 1st grade playground.

Wa...Wa....WOOF!

So, when are you going to try posting something "factual" again?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK has never met a real fact he liked.


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



are you serious?

According to The New York Times, "he *[Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas.* *He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more.* His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. *Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000*,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

You call this generally a pretty good life?
WHAT?

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

I have no idea what the comment about Florida voters is
People get an ID
They are alive
They are a citizen
they vote

What is so wrong with that?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 1, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...


*"Case in point*. Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that destroying or rendering useless items essential to the survival of civilian populations is illegal under international law and a war crime. Hard then to explain the *1991 US bombing of electrical grids that powered 1,410 water-treatment plants for Iraq's 22 million people*. 

"An excerpt from a 1998 US Air Force document, entitled 'Strategic Attack,' chillingly explains: 'The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and *led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River*.' 

"A second US Defense Intelligence Agency document, 1991's 'Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' predicted how *sanctions would then be used* to prevent Iraq from getting the equipment and chemicals necessary for water purification, which would result in '*a shortage of pure drinking water* for much of the population' leading to '*increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease*.'"

Material Breach: US Crimes in Iraq


----------



## JRK (Jun 1, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



5 Whys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_WhysThe 5 Whys is a question-asking technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem. The primary goal of the technique ...
Example - History - Techniques - Criticism
People who have to resolve issues use this to find the root cause of a problem

Without Saddam, none of those events take place
The root cause of all of these events was Saddam Hussien


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



Others estimate?

Whom?

Are you a New York Times fan now?

Yeah, Saddam was brutal. So are about seventy other tyrants in the world ruling their own SOVEREIGN nations as we speak. Why aren't we taking THEM out? Why did we stop with Saddam Hussein? I mean....as long as people like you are willing to use the U.S. military to clean the whole world?

By the way dude....WE sold him the poison gas and then REMAINED his buddy long after he had already used it.

https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

Iran Chamber Society: History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

Now how's THAT for a double standard on the concern for "quality of life?"


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...


Saddam's party would never have come to power in Iraq without help from the CIA.
The concern of US elites over the control of "greatest material prize in history" is the root cause of all the war crimes committed in the Middle East since the end of WWII.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2012)

How many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq in the last month from suicide bombers?
Probably 10 times more than Saddam killed.
How many suicide attacks when he was in power.
Hint: Less than 1.
You can not change those animals over there. Saddam was terrible. The current folk there are as bad or worse.
Bush was a fool. The intelligence was a joke. Anyone with a brain knows that.
And I vote Republican.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Not the help, the cooperation.
In intelligence that is a big difference.
CIA is an intelligence operation, not a policy and strategy entity. CIA has no military power.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



It's all semantics in that regard.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



For instance if the CIA didn't have the power to "shape" policy then how was Congress led to war with MOST of the C.I.A.'s top officials advising against it?

Oh yeah.....Donald Rumsfeld/Dick Cheney's clandestine "Office of Special Plans was cherrypicking raw, unvetted C.I.A. intel and presenting it to Congress as the polished product using the qualifier that "all of the other intel agencies around the world concur."

What they neglected to tell Congress was that all of the other world intel agencies were simply "concurring" on the same garbage they were presenting to Congress!

Quite a loop huh?

It did influence policy to the tune of over three thousand dead American soldiers though.

Tune in next for someone to chime in "yeah....but Clinton saw the same intel back in (fill in the blank)."

So what? He didn't use it to invade Iraq did he?

Maybe he was a little smarter than G.W. ya thank?


----------



## starcraftzzz (Jun 1, 2012)

JRK said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...


Its better hten having anoutehr million killed due to an war and an endless amount of terrorists attacks


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 1, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



The war in Iraq has already guaranteed us terrorist attacks for evermore.

So unfortunately when the next 9-11 strikes our soil we won't get to be pissed and outraged.

We'll just have to hang our heads and remember George Bush and company.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> You should check into what Iraq looked like before the first gulf war and UN sanctions (mostly driven by the U.S.).
> 
> Great universities....medical facilities unmatched in the eastern hemisphere....a thriving economy....arts....literature.
> 
> Generally a pretty good quality of life for anybody!





Are you in-fucking-sane? Did you ever speak with Iraqis who lived under saddam's rule during that time? "A pretty good quality of life" didn't come up very often.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

JRK continues to post fail nonsense.  I find it silly of him to say he puts me on ignore then answers my posts.

JRK is a liar, pure and simple.

1) no WMDs were found as described by the Administration. Any talk about yellow cake and other stuff, when read in full, one quickly realizes this is not what the Admin meant,

2) Iraqi women are being forced into sharia submission, including honor killings.

3) JRK shames our American military personnel every time he posts.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Are you in-fucking-sane? Did you ever speak with Iraqis who lived under saddam's rule during that time? "A pretty good quality of life" didn't come up very often.


Looking back, many Iraqis now say that life under Hussein was better.  Because at least back then, they knew which direction the enemy was coming from.  Now, it comes all sides.

Back then, women were allowed to drive a car and go to college.  Now they can't even go out of the house without a male escort.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 2, 2012)

JRK said:


> His unprovoked invasion of...


Funny how you pick and choose, which "unprovoked invasion", you're for and against?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Loinboy kicks JRK butt the way our military personnel kicked SH's army.

Then our government through it all away.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

What a fucking moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.

Do we need permission from the UN to defend ourselves, dumbfuck? If China attacks Hawaii do we need the UN to give us the OK to shoot back?  

Did Obamination get UN approval to enter Pakistan and kill UBL and his friends??? I don't recall the UN giving Obamination approval to go after terrorists, especially going into a third party country.  Come on dumbfuck, you need to connect all your dots. 



loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Ahhhh, an idiot from down under. You don't know shit about what is going on inside Iraq....but please tell us what your tiny brain thinks is going on like Cheney and Bush are making millions from Iraqi oil, throw in Haliburton too...eh?

Oh, don't try to play yourself as special and more intelligent based on your Aussie background, I've been there and worked around your military....you are not more intelligent than us, idiot.



theliq said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Dumbfuck, nice stories about things Bush didn't do in 1958, but I'm sure you can twist the story into Bush being the centerpiece. 

Again, Bush went to the UN to get internationl support to squeeze Saddam but instead he found Europeans, Russians and UN leaders in on the Oil for Food scam stealing money off the top of the program while they allowed Saddam to play games with the IAEA inspectors. 

So Bush just RESTARTED the first Gulf War that Saddam started because the US military doesn't need the corrupt UN to give us permission to do the right things. 

Got that, dumfuck?



bobgnote said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

You are an example of how idiots get to expose themselves on the internet. In the 1970s your kind would just be known in your neighborhood for being an idiot but now people around the world can see it.

So we left "combat troops" in Iraq at "4" bases, huh? So Obamination and the media lied when they claimed "combat troops" left Iraq.

Based on my work dealing with OSC-I, I recall the number being less than 400 military personnel, so I guess you think we have 100 troops at each base...eh dumbfuck? Hint: The Iraqis wouldn't like "secret" US troops sneaking out of these bases without agreements in place like SOFA and we wouldn't like it too since those troops that are outside the mission of the Embassy could be held under Iraq's laws.....but you didn't know that, sorry to ruin your fairytale.

Oh, you did NOT show where we're stealing Iraqi oil, the entire reason for invading Iraq according to you idiots...instead you went on some rant about high gas prices here that I didn't mention. Gas prices are high here because we don't even drill enough in our country, not because of what we do/don't do in Iraq.....dumbfuck.



Bloodline said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy.  Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself.  He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

So Bush violated US laws....which ones? Let's see, Congress (writes the laws) supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq, but Democraps later jumped ship once mistakes of dealing with Sunnis made the situation drag on longer than a TV show. You liberals have limited mental capacity, so anything longer than a TV show blows a fuse.

Maybe you mean Bush violated international laws....which ones? Just to give you a hint, removing a murderous dictator like Saddam for non-compliance with IAEA inspections regarding his WMD program and supporting terrorists attacking Israel during a ceasefire from a war HE STARTED typically doesn't meet international law standards among sane people.

Sure kooks like you that are dumber than shit throw around violations of laws from here to Mars, but even Democraps in charge right now would laugh you out of the room. In fact, they would lock you in a rubber room. 



Bloodline said:


> Don't be a butt nutt!
> 
> Think about what you are saying dude!
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad.

Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil.

Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise.

Come on truck driver, you can do it. 



JakeStarkey said:


> TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy.  Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself.  He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

So the "secret" Sesame Street number is 2, eh? I thought it was the lucky number 7? We must invade Iraq SEVEN TIMES!!!!









bobgnote said:


> The US went to Iraq, again, to prove to Sunnis, how GW Bush can count to two.
> 
> Two towers, two wars, against Iraq, two wars, going on at the same time, against Sunnis.
> 
> Problem is, GW and all the wingnuts in creation don't add their collective IQ to three.  They make up for the obvious lack of brains, with raw greed.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> What a fucking moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.
> 
> Do we need permission from the UN to defend ourselves, dumbfuck? If China attacks Hawaii do we need the UN to give us the OK to shoot back?
> 
> ...



Experts are still divided over the issue of whether the use of force by the U.S. was legal in the invasion of Iraq. There will be doubt in the minds of all INTELLIGENT people probably forever.

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42. 

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues

Funny that it's so cut and dry in the minds of simpletons like you!

Bush and his daddy's friends had no patience with the UN route so their "justification" in attacking in spite of agreement among the other major UN nations that weapons inspections were working, was to grasp at the straw that Saddam had not honored the cease fire agreement put in place in 1991

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17. 

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid. 

At that point I believe they made their first mistake in the giant shell game that would become justification for war.

You see, a long time ago there was this pesky little guy with a funny moustache in Germany who decided he wanted to take over ALL of Europe. He began invading other nations who hadn't even attacked him first!  He justified his actions by saying they were in the "national defense" of his homeland.

As a result, once the funny little guy was driven from power and forced to kill himself the United States sat down with a bunch of leaders from other countries and wrote some international LAWS to make sure that NO more funny little men could EVER invade other sovereign nations who hadn't attacked them using the ruse that it was for their own national security to do so!

Then all those years later ANOTHER funny little man (G.W. Bush) pulled the SAME thing in spite of the laws!!!

So....cool....we "liberated" Iraq from a brutal regime.....maybe.

It was still illegal because no WMD existed as claimed meaning Iraq was NEVER a threat to our national security and a "preemptive" strike was never necessary!


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Ahhh, a dumbfuck like you rolls out some kook left-wing evidence. 

Uh, maybe you need to figure out who started the entire conflict in the first place and that the US military never left patrolling Iraq during the ceasefire. You see Iraq lost many of its international rights when they invaded Kuwait and endlessly violated terms of the ceasefire. It's like when you broke the law and you violate your terms of parole....the police can bust down your door and take you back to jail.

So kooks like you need to prove TODAY what the US got in return for removing Saddam. Remember those claims that we went there to steal Iraqi oil.....so prove we are indeed stealing their oil after "invading" Iraq.

Now, get back to your fry rack job and stay out of adult issues. 



Bloodline said:


> Experts are still divided over the issue of whether the use of force by the U.S. was legal in the invasion of Iraq. There will be doubt in the minds of all INTELLIGENT people probably forever.
> 
> Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated.  BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons.  Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation.  Watch and learn, little one.



JakeStarkey said:


> TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy.  Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself.  He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.






GoneBezerk said:


> So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad.  Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil.  Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise.  Come on truck driver, you can do it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Tell us how the CIA can drop smart bombs.
Is that "semantics"?


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Dumbfuck, what are these laws? Name them.

Also, which European country is going to arrest a former US POTUS protected by the US Secret Service. Can you say an act of war, terrorism by kidnapping an American citizen like our former leader in Europe?

Good God you're dumber than shit. You liberals are kooks of the highest order among tin foil hat club members.



JakeStarkey said:


> Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated.  BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons.  Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation.  Watch and learn, little one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded.  Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement.  The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,.  Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now?  They are criminals, tard, and they know it.



JakeStarkey said:


> Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated.  BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons.  Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation.  Watch and learn, little one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbfuck, what are these laws? Name them.  Also, which European country is going to arrest a former US POTUS protected by the US Secret Service. Can you say an act of war, terrorism by kidnapping an American citizen like our former leader in Europe?  Good God you're dumber than shit. You liberals are kooks of the highest order among tin foil hat club members.


----------



## sparky (Jun 2, 2012)




----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



CIA is one of 16 intelligence agencies. 
If you want I can tell you how the CIA has only a limited intelligence gathering purpose.
For your information the CIA is a CIVILIAN intelligence agency of the government. 
They report to the Director of National Intelligence.
Now please tell us how much influence they have over the military intelligence branches that report directly to the JCS and that chain of command.
Politically, who do you think has more influence on the commander in chief, CIA or the other 15 intelligence agencies that have been training and planning operational on the ground strategy in conjunction with every branch of the military?
"cherry picking" is done in every intelligence gathering operation. 
Monday morning QBing is always there when things go wrong and when they go right we have the Obamas there to take the credit for it.
Operational intelligence is not an exact science. I know. I do it for a living for 34 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

G, you were a private businessman, and now you are saying you are a spook?

I am saying you are a liar.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Over-simplification.  What was the cost to the USA?

We spent a trillion dollars on the war over 8 years, lost 4,500 killed, 30,000 wounded half of which could not return to combat status.  We will spend 2 trillion dollars over the next 100 years in disability and healthcare to the wounded vets from Iraq war (estimate I have seen, and assumes the last Iraq vet dies at age 120 as the lifespan gets longer).

None of your stated benefits directly helps the US.

Who ever said it was the US responsibility to remove Saddam?  It wasn't.  We should have armed his internal opposition to overthrow him if they wanted to, but it wasn't our affair.

No WMD, no involvement in 9/11 = stay out.

It was a bad deal for the US, cost too much and we got too little out of it.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Again idiot....name these laws he violated.

NATO would not stop the US from doing anything, we lead NATO.....you fucking moron.  

WHO is going to so-called "lawfully" arrest Bush? A couple left-wing turds like you? Try it, the Secret Service would shoot you dead in a second. 

As for Bush's travel, maybe he doesn't want to bring such a large footprint of agents like Obamination does when he travels. Bush is happy hanging out in Texas, a state bigger than most European countries. But keep inventing these stories in your head, it keeps you from chasing little boys at the playground.



JakeStarkey said:


> Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded.  Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement.  The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,.  Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now?  They are criminals, tard, and they know it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Tardzerk now is repeating questions, to which he has been answered, and insults, the which no one cares.  He remains corrected until he comes up with something worthwhile. _ Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded.  Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement.  The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,.  Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now?  They are criminals, tard, and they know it._



JakeStarkey said:


> Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated.  BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons.  Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation.  Watch and learn, little one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





GoneBezerk said:


> Again idiot....name these laws he violated.  NATO would not stop the US from doing anything, we lead NATO.....you fucking moron.   WHO is going to so-called "lawfully" arrest Bush? A couple left-wing turds like you? Try it, the Secret Service would shoot you dead in a second.   As for Bush's travel, maybe he doesn't want to bring such a large footprint of agents like Obamination does when he travels. Bush is happy hanging out in Texas, a state bigger than most European countries. But keep inventing these stories in your head, it keeps you from chasing little boys at the playground.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So what is your point?

Are you suggesting that the Bush administration got it wrong on Iraq due to flaws in the intelligence gathering process?

Because the Congressional record doesn't reflect that. Either does the 9-11 Commission's report.

No, most of the EVIDENCE details a concerted, aggressive program to shape the intel to suit the intentions of the Bush administration through the ommission of crucial caveats on information, the revival of already debunked and obsolete information presented as current fact, the suppression of any intel that didn't support plans for invasion, and so on.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Downing Street Memos?

Let me guess though....you were brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh long ago into parroting their mantra that these memos were "debunked," are "bullshit," were just a "vast left wing conspiracy" designed to discredit Bush, ect?

I would challenge you then to tell me HOW they were "debunked?" They exist. They are very REAL!

How about the Office of Special Plans?

Ever heard of that Mr. secret agent man LMFAO!


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Oh, nice jab at retarded people with the Tard comment. You think calling me a Tard (retard) is an insult, because it is an insult to be mentally retarded.  That shows how much of a scumbag you are when you insult retarded people. 

I don't use that word compared to idiot, dumbass, etc because retarded people can't help their mental functions, whereas dumb people like you are uneducated after being given a normal brain. 

So congrats on winning the asshole award on this board today for insulting retarded people over their condition. Dragging them into your scummy world to try to insult me and others here shows you are beyond help.



JakeStarkey said:


> Tardzerk now is repeating questions, to which he has been answered, and insults, the which no one cares.  He remains corrected until he comes up with something worthwhile. _ Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded.  Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement.  The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,.  Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now?  They are criminals, tard, and they know it._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

You better hope Assad's WMDs don't have Saddam's fingerprints on them.....

Oh, but you are so educated by left-wing kook websites that know "the truth." 



Bloodline said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded.  Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement.  The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,.  Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now?  They are criminals, tard, and they know it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are claiming that George Bush is a criminal?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



I do not listen to Limbaugh or Fox News or any of that so what is your point?
I was one of the first here to state correctly that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence.
Where have I stated otherwise?
Additionally, the Bush administration was briefed by the military after the fall of Baghdad and ignored almost all of their advice.
The military and most of the intelligence organizations did not want to disband the fully armed Iraqi Police and The Republican Guard which were over 80,000 at that time and armed to the teeth. Bush did it anyway and that was a massive fuck up. 
And most of the intel, including from the CIA, was that they would mass and attack troops if we let them go.
And the first road bomb was the next day. 
What I am schooling you on IS THE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS.
Most of everything you post is all over the map opinion with nothing substantive to back any of it up.
Intelligence IS NOT POLICY AND STRATEGY. All intel is is gathering and reporting. How the executive distorts, slants and sells it is not the work of any intelligence agency including the CIA.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...




I've tried this many times, and they simply will not admit to the costs. 

I'll also add the damaged minds, the destroyed families, and the children who will never see Dad again.  But the people with whom you're trying to communicate with simply refuse to acknowledge these costs.

Irony of ironies, these are the same people who claim to care about the troops.

.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> So the "secret" Sesame Street number is 2, eh? I thought it was the lucky number 7? We must invade Iraq SEVEN TIMES!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, IQ-of-2 asshole!  You didn't reply to my information, how GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld used a lying Iraqi informant, to bullshit Congress, into believing WMDs were in Iraq.  You are a piece of shit, for not noticing I posted, how Saddam was a secular Sunni, in charge of a Shiite majority, since he was a CIA asset, 1958.  You are a turd-bag, with an IQ of 2, who read right over my post, about how GHW Bush got cold feet, on the road to Basra, so his chimpy kid could get it on, with lies, to invade, again.

You ranting, propped up piece of crap!  Reply to all issues in my post.  Your time in any US employ was a really bad bargain, for your employer, whether government or private.  Since you are stupid, and you will make a really bad impression, stay out of foreign countries, but hey, we don't need you in the US, either.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

The kooks claimed Bush and Cheney went in to steal Iraq's oil but today can't show it happened. 

They claim Bush and Cheney violated US and international laws but can't show them or who is going to enforce them except some rogue left-wing groups talking shit out both ends. 

They try to tie Bush and Cheney to the CIA actions during the Cold War in Iraq which somehow in their demented minds connects Bush and Cheney to supporting Saddam. 

They babble non-stop about getting justice even claiming Bush staying in Texas at his age is proof he is hiding from the "world police." 

Insanity comes to mind....


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> What a fucking moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.


You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

When Congress ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of our Constitution.  So we broke our law, you fuckin' idiot!



GoneBezerk said:


> Do we need permission from the UN to defend ourselves, dumbfuck? If China attacks Hawaii do we need the UN to give us the OK to shoot back?


Don't change the subject, that is completely irrelevant!  We were not attacked by Iraq, you fuckin' moron!



GoneBezerk said:


> Did Obamination get UN approval to enter Pakistan and kill UBL and his friends??? I don't recall the UN giving Obamination approval to go after terrorists, especially going into a third party country.  Come on dumbfuck, you need to connect all your dots.


You mean "third world country".

Man, I feel like I'm talking to a 10 year old!


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Ok, so we see you are insane and are stuck on the number 2. Hmmmm, we have a term here in the US about the number 2. It sticks with you.

Oh, so Bush has some secret connection to the CIA's work in 1958? Your rant about Saddam being a Sunni ruling over Shia that align with Iran....doesn't make sense. 

You see, we removed Saddam for the safety of other Sunnis in other Arab countries and the safety of Jews in Israel, not to help the Shia in Iran....but your insanity does create wild conspiracy theories......make it "2" conspiracy theories!



bobgnote said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > So the "secret" Sesame Street number is 2, eh? I thought it was the lucky number 7? We must invade Iraq SEVEN TIMES!!!!
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> The kooks claimed Bush and Cheney went in to steal Iraq's oil but today can't show it happened.
> 
> They claim Bush and Cheney violated US and international laws but can't show them or who is going to enforce them except some rogue left-wing groups talking shit out both ends.
> 
> ...



Well, we did support Saddam with intelligence in his was with Iran. In return we received more than we gave. 
There is no world police out to get Bush or Cheney. I agree with you on that.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> You better hope Assad's WMDs don't have Saddam's fingerprints on them.....
> 
> Oh, but you are so educated by left-wing kook websites that know "the truth."
> 
> ...



Actually left-wind kook websites don't have anything to do with it.

I get MY information from all over the place.

Ok...I'll hope Assad's WMD's don't have Saddam's fingerprint on them lol!

I doubt they will though. You see....Saddam NEVER had functional WMD to secretely ship out of the country under the cover of darkness upon our invasion.

The CIA said so.

You should know that shouldn't you....being an insider and all?


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Little boy, you are a joke compared to me. 

So we violated our own laws by defending Kuwait in the 90s? Or is it when we were defending Israel and the rest of the middle east from Saddam in 2003? Which one? Uh, they're all connected, dumbfuck.

Saddam attacked Kuwait, but I'm guessing you weren't alive when it happened.  Your high school teacher should teach you that on Monday.

Pakistan is a "third party country" since they are not directly involved with our wars. Pakistan is playing us and the terrorists along the border, so they are a third party to the conflict you dumb mother-fucker. 



loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > What a fucking moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

We sided with the Iraqis vs Iran when Bush was some random businessman in the 80s. 

The CIA made friends with people like Saddam during the Cold War because we saw the Soviets as a bigger threat, but these kooks are blaming Bush for it now. 



Gadawg73 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > The kooks claimed Bush and Cheney went in to steal Iraq's oil but today can't show it happened.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Saddam had WMDs, the intel community doesn't know exactly how or when it went away.

Does Syria own WMDs???? What does your left-wing kook websites tell you. 

FYI....the IAEA admits the Iraq and Syria border was not monitored by them, so moving WMD across that border with Russian help is very, very easy. Those same Russians that supported Saddam until the end and today support Assad.....



Bloodline said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > You better hope Assad's WMDs don't have Saddam's fingerprints on them.....
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > What a fucking moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.
> ...



No, a treaty does not over ride The United States Constitution.
And that gray area of The Treaties Clause is where we are now and when Bush invaded Iraq. 
Patrick Henry at the Convention declared that Treaties, though like a Federal Law, "the object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is EXTERNAL"

And Madison stated "Treaties must be under the authority of The United States, to be within *their province*".

I don't like it when Bush and other Presidents stretch executive powers but Johnson did it with the Viet Nam war and every President has done it.
Not saying it is right but the Treaties Clause is unclear in many areas.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

The Senate ratifies treaties, not the Congress.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Little boy, you are a joke compared to me.
> 
> So we violated our own laws by defending Kuwait in the 90s?


We had UNSC authorization for that one.  You don't know what Article 51 says, do you?  Maybe you should do your homework first, junior, before you decide to get into a big peoples conversation.



GoneBezerk said:


> Or is it when we were defending Israel and the rest of the middle east from Saddam in 2003?


Defending against what?  Hussein was in his own country and not threatening anyone.  God, are stupid!



GoneBezerk said:


> Which one? Uh, they're all connected, dumbfuck.


Would that be those "dots" you were referring to earlier?



GoneBezerk said:


> Saddam attacked Kuwait, but I'm guessing you weren't alive when it happened.  Your high school teacher should teach you that on Monday.


You guess a lot!



GoneBezerk said:


> Pakistan is a "third party country" since they are not directly involved with our wars. Pakistan is playing us and the terrorists along the border, so they are a third party to the conflict you dumb mother-fucker.


Fuck off, you war-mongering asshole! 

 We're the terrorists in that part of the world.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

No evidence of WMDs was ever found in Iraq.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Dumbfuck...the US military never left patrolling over Iraq, we even dropped bombs on Iraq under "Bill Clinton." Bill Clinton even made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power. So should Bill Clinton be brought up on charges for making it US policy? 

Saddam was bothering "nobody?" So giving aid to suicide bombers in Israel is minding his own business? 

I know you're a teenage twit, so get back to your mowing the lawn, asshole. 



loinboy said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Little boy, you are a joke compared to me.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Wrong, the US military uncovered WMD caches in random places many times buried. Saddam either forgot about them or kept them buried for some reason in the future. 

Saddam had a WMD program....he used them on the Kurds. The thing is we didn't find the levels we thought we would when intel pics showed Saddam's troops constantly moving/burying stuff in the desert.

The most logical thing is he overplayed his remaining WMDs to scare his neighbors and he moved some out to Syria when he couldn't keep moving them to avoid the IAEA inspectors. He probably thought he could get the WMDs back once the UN grew tired of him and shut down the inspections, but 9/11 ruined that plan. 



Gadawg73 said:


> No evidence of WMDs was ever found in Iraq.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Saddam had WMDs, the intel community doesn't know exactly how or when it went away.
> 
> Does Syria own WMDs???? What does your left-wing kook websites tell you.
> 
> ...



Does Syria have WMD?

I don't know.

Why don't we make up a lie that they DO though so we can invade them just like we did Iraq. Then if we don't find any weapons or any other threat that they posed to us to justify illegal "preemptive action we can make up ANOTHER lie that we actually went in to "liberate" the nation.

Oh wait....that's all already been done hasn't it?

How convenient!

An unmonitored border!

That was all the Fox News crowd needed at the time for Kool-Aid wasn't it?

"Aha! THAT'S where the WMD went! We KNEW it!"

Only no one really "knew" anything did they? It was all about defending the myth of George Bush at any cost.....to hell with the country and it's troops right?


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

So FOXNews is behind the WMD intel regarding Iraq, Syria,.....maybe Iran too??? 

I knew you don't know shit, but you finally admitted it. 

Get back to those left-wing kook websites for your daily meal of bullshit.



Bloodline said:


> Does Syria have WMD?
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> ...


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Wrong, the US military uncovered WMD caches in random places many times buried. Saddam either forgot about them or kept them buried for some reason in the future.
> 
> Saddam had a WMD program....he used them on the Kurds. The thing is we didn't find the levels we thought we would when intel pics showed Saddam's troops constantly moving/burying stuff in the desert.
> 
> ...


The few WMD found after the 2003 war were simply left over from before the '91 war.  The UNSCOM team reported they had found and destroyed 96% of the WMD known about at the end of the '91 war.  The stuff found after the2003 war was the left over we did not find by the time UNSCOM pulled out in '98.

That is NOT what the war in 03 was supposed to be about.  Not about 'leftovers' that were not militarily viable anymore.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 2, 2012)

Good morning.  It's Saturday, June 2.  And WMDs were still not found in Iraq.

Back to your regular programming.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Wrong, the US military uncovered WMD caches in random places many times buried. Saddam either forgot about them or kept them buried for some reason in the future.
> 
> Saddam had a WMD program....he used them on the Kurds. The thing is we didn't find the levels we thought we would when intel pics showed Saddam's troops constantly moving/burying stuff in the desert.
> 
> ...



Of course we "knew" that Saddam had the dual use materials to make the weapons at some point in the DISTANT past because WE still have the receipts!

What we also knew though was that those materials would have been so degraded they would have been useless in 2002 .

That's not something the Bush administration REALLY wanted played up for Congress and its "coalition of the willing" though.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003. 

The WMD program that Saddam never came clean about was one reason why we invaded Iraq, human rights violations is another, and supporting terrorists attacking Israel is another. In addition violating terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and UN resolutions sealed his fate AFTER 9/11. 

Before 9/11 the US was allowing the IAEA and Saddam to do their tap dance for years, but once islamic terrorists killed around 3,000 inside the US on 9/11, the game changed. The US was no longer going to allow Saddam to support terrorists and possibly pass WMD to terrorists, but of course dumbfucks like you would rather take a chance he wouldn't do it. 



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, the US military uncovered WMD caches in random places many times buried. Saddam either forgot about them or kept them buried for some reason in the future.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

You're full of shit about your knowledge of Saddam's WMDs. You couldn't find Iraq on a map before 2003. 

Saddam bought weapons over the years from Europeans, the Chinese, North Koreans and Russians AFTER we caged him up in the 90s. To claim the intel community knew nobody helped his WMD program is total bullshit, but all you post is bullshit.

Get lost....



Bloodline said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, the US military uncovered WMD caches in random places many times buried. Saddam either forgot about them or kept them buried for some reason in the future.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Moron....even your fellow left-wing kooks admit WMD were found during the second Gulf War. 

You need to get your lies together. 



candycorn said:


> Good morning.  It's Saturday, June 2.  And WMDs were still not found in Iraq.
> 
> Back to your regular programming.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003.
> 
> The WMD program that Saddam never came clean about was one reason why we invaded Iraq, human rights violations is another, and supporting terrorists attacking Israel is another. In addition violating terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and UN resolutions sealed his fate AFTER 9/11.
> 
> ...



Scott Ritter publicly and correctly told the world Iraq had no WMD, that we had adequate monitoring capability that we would know if Iraq restarted its WMD development.  

Dumbfucks like you would rather listen to liars like Bush and Cheney, and don't even concern yourselves with the cost, 1 trillion to fight the war, 4500 americans killed, 30,000 wounded, and 2 trillion in future expenses to cover the wounded.  

And for what?

Epic Fail!


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Uh dumbfuck, you just said we found WMD in Iraq but then claim Scott Ritter said there was none. You need to read your own lies. 

Scott Ritter is a fraud, didn't he get arrested after going on his rants? Where is he today....some mental ward? I believe he is in jail on a second charge of trying to screw underage girls.  

Scott Ritter didn't have access to the intel photos that showed Saddam's troops doing weird work in the desert. If it was for show, then Saddam made a fatal mistake trying to fool us believing Bush wouldn't act out of fear Saddam had WMD.

The US military was expecting WMD attacks, asshole. The US Govt didn't know Saddam's WMD program was either shut down or mostly moved out of Iraq before the war. 

But rant on about how you wish Saddam and his sons were still killing Iraqis, stealing their wealth and supporting terrorists blowing up "the Jews." Eh, Nazi....

You do realize the Saddam's political party was modeled by his uncle after the Nazis. They support your support of their efforts, despite both of your EPIC FAILS when the US military ruined it all for you and them.



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003.
> ...


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

.

*GoneBezerk, looks to me like you'll be willing to agree to something which JRK has chosen to avoid.  * Please let me know if you agree with the following:

The benefits of the Iraq War have been worth the following:


4,486 American soldiers killed
33,184 American soldiers wounded
Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

I'm asking a serious, sincere, reasonable question.  Name-calling and personal insults are not necessary, nor is diversion.

*All of the above are facts.  It was worth it, yes or no?*


.


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> You're full of shit about your knowledge of Saddam's WMDs. You couldn't find Iraq on a map before 2003.
> 
> Saddam bought weapons over the years from Europeans, the Chinese, North Koreans and Russians AFTER we caged him up in the 90s. To claim the intel community knew nobody helped his WMD program is total bullshit, but all you post is bullshit.
> 
> ...



Ok.

Going out to enjoy a Saturday.

I'll be back to bitch slap you some more later OK?


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Your 8 hour shift at Burger King starts in 30 minutes.



Bloodline said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > You're full of shit about your knowledge of Saddam's WMDs. You couldn't find Iraq on a map before 2003.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

So no US military women were killed in Iraq? Oh, but nice try with the "Daddy" comment. 

The troops that died in Iraq is never a good thing, but the number is tiny compared to other wars. 

The majority of the dead troops are because of mistakes made in the post-war efforts when we blocked Baath party members from important roles in the new Iraq. That caused the insurgents and terrorists to turn the country into a mess for awhile until we changed our course with the Sunni people. 

So the mistakes made after we took control of the country don't support your false premise that Saddam shouldn't be removed from power for various reasons. You wouldn't have a pot to pee in if we didn't screw up the internal politics inside Iraq with the Baath party.



Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> *GoneBezerk, looks to me like you'll be willing to agree to something which JRK has chosen to avoid.  * Please let me know if you agree with the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> So no US military women were killed in Iraq? Oh, but nice try with the "Daddy" comment.
> 
> The troops that died in Iraq is never a good thing, but the number is tiny compared to other wars.
> 
> ...





Don't see an answer to my very direct question there, so I'll try again.

Worth it, yes or no?

.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Uh dumbfuck, you just said we found WMD in Iraq but then claim Scott Ritter said there was none. You need to read your own lies.
> 
> Scott Ritter is a fraud, didn't he get arrested after going on his rants? Where is he today....some mental ward?
> 
> ...



Bush did not send Powell to the UN to tell them we were going into Iraq to get a few old WMD shells left from the 91 war, he sent him to tell the world that Saddam had re-started his WMD program, and they all lied.

Ritter said Iraq was not making new WMD and we had adequate monitoring to know if he did re-start the program, but he had not. 

Ritter was correct, Bush, Cheney, Powell were wrong.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Uh, yes.

Instead of needing to worry about keeping Saddam in his box we can focus on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, al qaeda worldwide and emerging issues in Syria and Iran. 

Would your messiah Obamination be brave enough to bomb Libya to remove their dictator when a worse one in Saddam was still doing his thing in Iraq?  Saddam had a larger military, had used WMDs and even supports terrorists more recently than Qaddaffi......that would look strange going after Qaddaffi. 

Today Iraq is more of an ally than before the war, we are in fact selling them F-16s and will train their pilots here. We are slowly grooming their military to be professional troops to follow international law and protect human rights. 

Of course, you can go to Iraq today and tell them about how good life was under Saddam.....but I doubt you'd survive.  



Mac1958 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > So no US military women were killed in Iraq? Oh, but nice try with the "Daddy" comment.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 2, 2012)

Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites. 

He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions. 

But go on about how Saddam was innocent, etc.



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh dumbfuck, you just said we found WMD in Iraq but then claim Scott Ritter said there was none. You need to read your own lies.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Tardzerk, the intel photos showed them, us, you, and me moving stuff around.  That's what people, companies, and countries do.  No WMDs described by General Powell were found, then or now.  In fact, as we know now and back thenm SH was no threat to us and one that the international community was busily removing through threats and sanctions.  We launched an illegal war, and that is going to haunt us for the next 100 years.   If the senior Bushies travel without diplomatic protection to Europe, it will haunt them as well.




GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.  He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions. But go on about how Saddam was innocent, etc.





finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh dumbfuck, you just said we found WMD in Iraq but then claim Scott Ritter said there was none. You need to read your own lies.
> ...


[/QUOTE]


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.  He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions.
> 
> But go on about how Saddam was innocent, etc.


Tardy, don't forget to notice how full of shit you are, in traffic.  GWs gang used a lying informant, to dupe Congress.  Nobody found WMDs.  Saddam was a CIA client-asset, in 1958, and GWH konked out, on the road to Basra, so GW could be a lying hero.

You are a punk-fuck, who ducks issues and spams.  Eat shit and die.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

Colin Powell is the first to state publicly now he was conned.
Why do you think he was pushed out of the administration?
Powell, Nam combat vet.
Bush, Commander In Wannahbe. 
The UN speech Powell gave was full of factual problems. 
The military knew better. Their version of that speech amongst the top brass in the Pentagon was it was cooked. 
Powell stated that speech was a blot on his record. It was a complete fraud.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbfuck...the US military never left patrolling over Iraq, we even dropped bombs on Iraq under "Bill Clinton." Bill Clinton even made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power. So should Bill Clinton be brought up on charges for making it US policy?
> 
> Saddam was bothering "nobody?" So giving aid to suicide bombers in Israel is minding his own business?
> 
> ...



You mean the Bill Clinton that let Bin Laden get away while getting his Johnson a Lewinsky?
That Bill Clinton?


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.
> 
> He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions.
> 
> ...



Your opinion counts for 1 vote.  The american people looked at the whole situation, with years of discussion behind them, and concluded in the 2008 election of Obama, that the repubs were liars and fiscally irresponsible, that they had wasted our national treasure of lives and money in Iraq for something that was not justified nor worth the price we paid for it.  That's the bottom line.  

The screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election, as it should have.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.
> ...



And now the undisputable conclusion is that Obama and the Democrats are liars and fiscally irresponsible X 2.
*WE ARE FUCKED*.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Are you in-fucking-sane? Did you ever speak with Iraqis who lived under saddam's rule during that time? "A pretty good quality of life" didn't come up very often.
> ...





Did you ever speak with Iraqis who lived under saddam's rule during that time?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.
> ...




The 2008 was absolutely NOT a referendum on the Iraq War. Don't try to make shit up just to promote your own POV.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

2008 was a referendum on Iraq, and don't ever think differently.  The neo-cons and the neo-econs were rebuked. Righteously so.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> 2008 was a referendum on Iraq, and don't ever think differently.




It most certainly was not, you dishonest lefty revisionist. Maybe you were stoned all that time, but 2008 was about the economy, and to a lesser extent a general feeling that people were in the mood for a new flavor after 8 years of a Republican president. If any election was 'about' Iraq it was 2004.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



You have the memory of a snail.  Here's proof.



> Senator John McCain plans to end the roughest week of his campaign by returning to New Hampshire, the state that handed him his major upset victory in 2000, and* talking about the war in Iraq, an issue that has come to define his campaign*.
> 
> In a speech he plans to deliver in Concord, N.H.,* Mr. McCain*, who just returned from Iraq last week, *plans to cast the 2008 presidential election as a referendum on the war in Iraq *&#8211; a risky stance, given polls that show the war is increasingly unpopular.
> 
> &#8220;In November, 2008 the American people will decide with their votes how and where this war will be fought or if it will be fought at all,&#8217;&#8217; Mr. McCain plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech obtained from the campaign.


In New Hampshire, McCain Defends Iraq War - NYTimes.com

You're just wrong.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbass.....Powell showed our *intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up* at those sites.
> 
> He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions.
> 
> ...



Showed Iraq moving WHAT STUFF around?  Kaye and Duelfer reports both concluded no WMD, no active WMD development programs, and those were appointed by the Bush admin to do the inspections.  You got nothing but your own spittle.  Got any links?


----------



## MaxCha (Jun 2, 2012)

> Looking back, many Iraqis now say that life under Hussein was better.



I remember I spent a summer in Lebanon when I was 15, and lived in a building with dozens of Iraqi nationals. They were still in contact with their families in Iraq, and they told me how terrifying and dangerous Iraq had become since the invasion (most of them spoke English) and thought that Bush was a complete idiot.

Then I went home and heard my uncle yell at my hippie cousin and say "the Iraqi people have never been happier! They will forever be grateful!"

And I thought - what an idiot.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 2, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



yes you are, from a grand strategic/Geo-political standpoint it was a disaster. 

Iraq, even under Saddam represented the only hard power check Iran recognized, and feared.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 2008 was a referendum on Iraq, and don't ever think differently.
> ...



2004 was a vote on the success of the invasion, before the insurgency kicked out asses for three years.  2008 was about a president whose approval rate, because of the war, was hovering around 30%.  The recession pushed the final knife into the corpse of neo-con Republicanism.  It and its followers are outside and will remain there.  Romney will never engage in such stupidity.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...





Yes, because it was mentioned in the campaign, that means the entire election was a referendum on the war? You can't be that stupid. If you want a campaign that was a referendum on the war, take a look at 2004. 2008 was primarily about the economy and the electorate's general interest in a change of party (even so, had McCain not run one of the worst campaigns in history...).


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Can you read?  Read the part in red, where it says "* Mr. McCain*, who just returned from Iraq last week, *plans to cast the 2008 presidential election as a referendum on the war in Iraq *".

That is NOT MY OPINION, that is fact, as reported from the McCain campaign.  I lived through that election.  McCain wanted to continue the war indefinitely, Obama wanted to end it.  It was not just mentioned, it was a major part of the election issues.  You are wrong, and I have demonstrated it with support.  You are that stupid.  You got any support for your flawed memory?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

That was McCain's position, that was how the nation saw it, and the senior admin neo-cons were horrified at what would happen if McCain lost.  They would be, and were, vilified.  They would not, and cannot, travel the world without fear of arrest, rightfully so.  The revisionists, such as Unkotare, wiggle like an insect stuck to plyboard with a pin.  Struggle, little Unkoinsect, struggle.


----------



## Too Tall (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003.
> ...




This is what Ritter said on PBS:


> I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program



Then he wrote his book Endgame, evolved, and found that dissing Bush sold a lot more books.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



A neo-con revisionist narrative: dismissed.


----------



## Too Tall (Jun 2, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > So no US military women were killed in Iraq? Oh, but nice try with the "Daddy" comment.
> ...



Not only yes, but hell yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Absolutely not.  The American people rejected Too Tall's conclusion four years ago. He just refuses to understand.


----------



## Too Tall (Jun 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...



Nope, a direct quote made by Scott Ritter on _The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer_ on PBS.  Then On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Then this great American (in your demented opinion) said this:  On December 20th, 2005, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Tarrytown Music Hall in Tarrytown, NY, Ritter said furthermore that he would "prefer to be an Iraqi under Saddam than an Iraqi under a brutal American occupation."

I seldom say things like this, but fuck Ritter and the horse he rode in on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 2, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



Give us the source and links, so we can see who is massaging your version, for it is certainly a version and a wrong one.  I would like to see the Ritter quote in context.  You can do that, won't you?


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Yes, because it was mentioned in the campaign, that means the entire election was a referendum on the war? You can't be that stupid. If you want a campaign that was a referendum on the war, take a look at 2004. 2008 was primarily about the economy and the electorate's general interest in a change of party (even so, had McCain not run one of the worst campaigns in history...).


If that was true, then why did every pro-war candidate but 2, lose their job in the election?


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



Ritter always said we had to continue to monitor Iraq, but he also clearly said they did not possess a WMD program in 2002, certainly not one that justified invading.  



> Despite identifying himself as a Republican and having voted for George W. Bush in 2000,[11] by 2002 Ritter had become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq possessed significant WMD stocks or manufacturing capabilities, the primary rationale given for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:
> 
> There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, *since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much*, but which is still prohibited ... *We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction*. But simultaneously, *we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war*. (page 28)
> 
> ...


Scott Ritter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, you could have believed Bush / Cheney etc. in which case you would have been wrong.  Ritter was correct.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Iraq, even under Saddam represented the only hard power check Iran recognized, and feared.




Not in the years between Gulf Wars I & II.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




You have a short memory, kid. By the 2004 election the insurgency was in full effect, Abu Ghraib had taken place, the failure to find WMDs was a hot issue, a video showing contractor Nicholas Berg being beheaded by insurgents had made the rounds; and second guessing, media attack, and democrats in congress running from their own positions and declaring failure was all over the news. 

By the 2008 election the surge had been vindicated as successful and Iraq was moving toward greater stability. 

The 2008 election was about the economy, McCain's horrible campaign, and a full-on media assault on Palin with one hand while fondling obama's sack with the other.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, because it was mentioned in the campaign, that means the entire election was a referendum on the war? You can't be that stupid. If you want a campaign that was a referendum on the war, take a look at 2004. 2008 was primarily about the economy and the electorate's general interest in a change of party (even so, had McCain not run one of the worst campaigns in history...).
> ...



Because most of them were democrats in a year when the Republicans took a beating. Of course, the democrats immediately proved their corruption and arrogance and so took a worse beating in the 2010 midterms.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I already showed you above the quote, McCain wanted to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. (page 210, post 3138) You have failed to respond with anything except your "opinion".

So, here we go again, McCain saying he'd be fine staying in Iraq for 100 years.  The american people didn't want that, and didn't trust the repubs to execute properly, so they voted against McCain.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk&feature=related]McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me" - YouTube[/ame]

The Iraq war was a central issue in the 2008 election because the american people wanted it over with.  Obama promised to get combat troops out, McCain didn't.  McCain lost.

Of course the economic collapse presided over by Bush with the housing bubble and failure to regulate the mortgage market and banking system angered people, but Iraq was also a big issue, and I have repeatedly shown it, which is more than you can say, you have shown NOTHING.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





All those facts above are not "opinion," kid. Try to pay attention.


----------



## finebead (Jun 2, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Prove it with links to support your case, like I have.  You got NOTHING punk.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 2, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...



Are you kidding? You don't remember 2004?! How old are you, 8? 


While you are waiting for your mommy to give you the answer to that one, consider that part of the reason McCain lost is that he failed to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. The economy took that out of his hands.


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I have not made one statement about the 2004 election, please try to keep up with what we are talking about.

I have shown that the McCain campaign had the referendum on Iraq as a major initiative in the 2008 election.  They did not fail to make it a referendum on Iraq, they kept it front and center.  The people didn't like McCain's ideas on Iraq ("I'm ok if we stay in Iraq 100 years").

You contended that Iraq was not a major issue in the 2008 election, I contend it was a major issue in the 08 election, and I have proven it was a major issue in 08 with my posts.  You have failed to support your position, because you cannot, because you are wrong.

This is another synopsis of the major issues in the 2008 presidential election:


> *Issues*
> [edit]*Iraq*
> *The unpopular war in Iraq was a key issue during the campaign* before the economic crisis. John McCain supported the war while Barack Obama opposed it. (Obama's early and strong opposition to the war helped him stand out against the other Democratic candidates during the primaries, as well as stand out to a war-weary electorate during the general campaign). Though McCain meant it as a peacetime presence like the United States maintained in Germany and Japan after World War II,[94] his statement that the United States could be in Iraq for as much as the next 50 to 100 years would prove costly. Obama used it against him as part of his strategy to tie him to the unpopular President Bush.
> 
> John McCain's support for the troop 'surge' employed by General David Petraeus, which was one of several factors credited with improving the security situation in Iraq, may have boosted McCain's stance on the issue in voters' minds. McCain (who supported the invasion) argued that his support for the successful surge showed his superior judgment. However, Obama was quick to remind voters that there would have been no need for a "surge" had there been no war at all, thus questioning McCain's judgment.


United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

Not only can't you remember 2004, you can't remember 2008?! Ok, so you are...what, 4 years old?


NPR: 2008 Election Issues: Economy


Can Barack Obama really make this election a referendum on the economy? | Business | TIME.com

Economy a deciding factor in 2008 election - JSOnline


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

Americans Prioritize the Economy Over Terrorism


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.



OK punk I'll defeat you with YOUR SOURCE.

On page 209 of this thread, I said:


			
				finebead said:
			
		

> The screw up of the *Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election*, as it should have.



On page 209 of this thread you said:



			
				Unkotare said:
			
		

> *The 2008 was absolutely NOT a referendum on the Iraq War*. Don't try to make shit up just to promote your own POV.



Now in YOUR source just above, from NPR, we have:


> Feb. 4, 2008 -- Last fall, as the subprime housing crisis intensified,* the economy replaced the war in Iraq as the top concern *for Americans.



It is CLEAR from your source, as well as every one that I have cited, that the situation was EXACTLY as I originally stated, that the screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election.

Geez, after Bush presided over economic collapse, the war in Iraq fell from 1 to 2 in importance.  It was still a major issue in the election, and I have been right all along.  Even per your source.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.
> ...





You need to learn how to read not just quote, kid. Wiki can't cure your stupidity, junior.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.


That's okay, you're not a legitimate debater.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

You still haven't answered my question, miss.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 3, 2012)

Unkotare has failed.

2008, by McCain's own admission, was a referendum on the Iraq War.


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You have lost the debate, and don't have the common decency to admit it, or just leave like most others.  This in not about wiki which shows you are wrong, I have also used your source to prove you are wrong.  You are wrong, and too immature to admit it and leave it alone, punk.  Seems all you can do it throw aimless insults, what a wimp. I now pity you.


----------



## Too Tall (Jun 3, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Obama said he would not follow Bush's time line and get the troops out by 2011.  He lied!  He did follow Bush's agreement with Maliki (sp) to the day, and Obama was too busy running for re-election to negotiate immunity for our troops so a residual force could stay there.  We were actually kicked out of Iraq.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare has failed.
> 
> 2008, by McCain's own admission, was a referendum on the Iraq War.



You wanna go back and read all the posts, or just the ones you like, you dishonest shit?

It was obama's goal to make 2008 about the economy. 

Which candidate was more successful in framing the election? Hmmmm...


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

finebead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > finebead said:
> ...




'Declarations' like that are a classic 'covering your retreat' technique. Go do your homework, kid.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Ya.  The cost.

We could have worked within Iraq covertly to establish some crediblity to kill Saddam and gone ahead and killed him allowing a "whole" Iraq to establish his successor.  If that guy didn't work out ..repeat until a satisfactory leader emmerged.

This could have all been done a thousand times cheaper and with 5,000 fewer Americans killed, hundred thousands less wounded trillions less spent.  Thousands fewer terrorists created.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



They (Iraqi people) hung Saddam, not us
How could anything be done with "man" who had killed millions and the NY times reported close to 1 million of his own people (gassed)
Al Qaeda was setting up base there in 02
Saddam was lying
He had munitions, He has Anthrax and there was 550 metric tons of un secured yellow cake there


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > You liberals and your childish name calling blows me away. your not taken serious by any-one after your first name calling event
> ...



here and now

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake"  the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment * was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. *It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission | Fox News


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



I have Mac on ignore, his way of honoring those who gave it all to fight our battles have some serious ways that those who were there and those of us who support them do not take kindly too

Now as far as those sacrifices? No Al Qaeda, no Saddam, no wars
Mac and his daddy comment is being circulated in certain circles
Ignore his, he is a sick pup who has gained the interest of many


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

finebead said:


> The Iraq war was a central issue in the 2008 election because the american people wanted it over with.  Obama promised to get combat troops out, McCain didn't.  McCain lost.
> 
> Of course the economic collapse presided over by Bush with the housing bubble and failure to regulate the mortgage market and banking system angered people, but Iraq was also a big issue, and I have repeatedly shown it, which is more than you can say, you have shown NOTHING.


Obama is proving marginally usable, to end the debacle of American presence in Iraq, evident since the CIA supported Saddam's career, since 1958, and likely before, concurrent with the 1953 CIA and MI6 involvement in Iran, to install the Shah, which also resulted in the creation, of modern BP.

But notice Bill Clinton signed deregulation, of courts, energy, and banks (1999).  Obama bailed the banks, in 2008, and he calls Jamie Dimon 'smart.'

In 2008, Obama told governors public healthcare was off the table, to be followed with 2700 pages of private-insurer debacle, known as Obamacare.  The Democrats lost the House in 2010 and finally tried to pass biomass research, which lost, 2012.  Obama signed NDAA, killed more people with drones in four years, and his USDOJ busted more pot clubs, than GW Bush did, in eight years.

'Barak' is the name of an ancient Israelite general.  Obama keeps thinking he can get fascists to vote for him, but they keep coming up with 'birther' allegations.  What a zoo.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > The Iraq war was a central issue in the 2008 election because the american people wanted it over with.  Obama promised to get combat troops out, McCain didn't.  McCain lost.
> ...



finehead the Iraq war end date was done, signed and complete in 2008
BHO had nothing to do with it and it had little to do with his winning

Lying about his balanced budget's
Lying about inheriting the same
Lying about his priorities
Lying about the job creation
The press and BHO blaming every thing on the GOP (who had not been in power for 24 months) 

BTW this is not personal. I respect BHO and what he did to continue the war on terror has been surprisingly a GWB continued path of success
he lied about all of those things I mentioned

I did not mention Gitmo as well those other items he stated he would un-do that GWB put into place to keep us safe


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> here and now
> 
> The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" &#8212; the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment &#8212;* was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. *It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
> Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission | Fox News


U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing would it become low-enriched uranium, which could fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs."

Hey.  Jerkoff!  You are a ranting idiot.

1.  Saddam was a CIA client, at least since 1958, so fuck off, the US was teeing off on Iraq, the whole time;
2.  GHW Bush got cold feet, on the road to Basra, which let GW Bush and Cheney tee off on Iraq when the CIA and FBI blew off leads, where both three-letter punk-bureaus knew the 9/11 terrorists were in the US and active, so now we have to have a DHS, and GW Bush wanted two wars, with Sunnis, since he is an asshole, and shit is number 2;
3.  In operation Curveball, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the conspirators in that fascist administration used a lying Iraqi informant, to justify lying to Congress;
4.  No WMDs were found in Iraq, and your stupid rants about yellowcake refer to unusable crap in aging drums, from the 1981 Israeli raid, and no yellowcake referred to by lying GW Bush was found.

You are a lying asshole.  Shut the fuck up, 212 pages late, you narcissistic fucktard.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> Bloodline said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



As usual you Bush suck ups try to play treason with his terrorism against Iraq. Their were no WMD in Iraq when Bush attacked and murdered over one and a half million innocent Iraqi people. 

Saddam was another American failed puppet and the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney axis of evil were the ones that sold Saddam the classified information to make his chemical and biological weapons as well as the chemicals through Cheney's Serle company. 

Bush is nothing but a treasonous murdering dog that will get what he deserves like the rest of his Nazi supporting family.

You traitors that want to continue terrorism wars need to move to Israel where your terrorist support will be welcome.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > here and now
> ...



Lets skip strike 1 and go straight to strike 2 to the ignore list
I have no idea what your talking about other than 2 sides to these events and why you conduct your self as a 3rd grade bully is confusing

You think any-one will take you serious with that rant and conducting your self as such?

Okay
The yellow cake was yellow cake, Being in the shape it was, was all the more reason to get it out of Iraq
I never said the intel that was all over the place and from different countries from the mid 90s through today had anything to do with the 550 metric tons of yellow cake, YOU DID
Curve ball was 1 side of so many stories. So what does this mean? and why does this mean so much to you as the only event that matters?
*Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says*
www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918Jun 29, 2006  Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says. By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service. WASHINGTON, June 29 ...

GWB admitted much of the intel was wrong (which most came from the Clinton years)

 RightWingNews.com :: Archives
rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.phpSince we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is ... "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq ...

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> Lets skip strike 1 and go straight to strike 2 to the ignore list...




JRK is going to pretend to ignore anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with him.  

What is this, the third grade?

How old are you?

Grow the fuck up.


.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

jack113 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Bloodline said:
> ...



The US had nothing to do with Saddam's behavior
The number of innocent people killed in Iraq by Saddam, Saddam loyalist, Al Qaeda and the other terrorist insurgents in Iraq where less than the same killed in the US by criminals
Crime has only your defining and numbers that are in error
Iraq Body Count project	105,052  114,731 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 162,000 civilian and combatant deaths[1][2]	March 2003 to January 2012
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][3][4][5]	109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[6][7]	January 2004 to December 2009
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why you Libs blame every-one except those who actually did the killing is beyond me. You have no desire to point out evil unless it advance your cause


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

Each post shows the rants of a madman. 

FYI....you forgot to mention the "number 2" in your post. 



bobgnote said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.  He also brought up Saddam's human rights violations, support to suicide bombers, and violations of the ceasefire terms/UN resolutions.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

Powell is a dick sucker to whoever is in charge at the time and based on the wind blowing. Once the war turned south inside the beltway and around NYC cocktail parties, Powell wanted to be liked so he turned on the war. 

He sucked dicks to get where he is at and today he is doing it with Obamination....kinda strange for a so-called Republican, eh? Oh, maybe it is because he puts his skin color above this nation.



Gadawg73 said:


> Colin Powell is the first to state publicly now he was conned.
> Why do you think he was pushed out of the administration?
> Powell, Nam combat vet.
> Bush, Commander In Wannahbe.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

When the 2008 election took place, the combat operations in Iraq were winding down. 

Obamination won the election because he is black, period. Uneducated blacks and every other skin color wanted to "make history" by electing a dumbass with no experience. The dragging out of the Iraq war because of tactical political mistakes with the Baath party in the end helped put the dumbass in the White House. 

Oh, you need to speak with the dumbasses in the White House since they claim Iraq was their shining moment. It's kinda hard for you to claim Iraq was a mistake while your messiah and his dumb sidekick brag about Iraq today.



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass.....Powell showed our intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up at those sites.
> ...


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Each post shows the rants of a madman.
> 
> FYI....you forgot to mention the "number 2" in your post.
> 
> ...


bobgnote has some serious anger issues as most libs do
I am not sure as to why Saddam being A CIA informant (if he was) has anything to do with invading Kuwait in 91
And lying
killing millions, many of his own for reasons that are as simple as dis agreeing with him

Saddam had to go after 9-11
the region could no longer allow him and Al Qaeda to take a foot hold
My god we did not start that mess, we ended it


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

Biden didn't get the memo that Iraq is the biggest disaster of mankind.....

Vice President Biden: Iraq &#8220;Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration&#8221; - ABC News


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

The hero of the kooks....Scott Ritter is in jail after being arrested for a second time trying to have sex with underage girls.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

Dumbfuck, Powell showed intel pics Saddam's military digging and moving material at sites that were targeted by the IAEA inspectors. I even saw more beyond what he exposed, dumbfuck. 

It is was discovered Iraq was being tipped off about where the IAEA inspectors were going since some Euro trash on the teams were pro-Saddam, probably getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food scam. Saddam knew where the IAEA inspectors wanted to go and so he would delay them until he could clean up the sites. 

Why would he be sending out his military to these sites before the inspectors if nothing was there, eh dumbfuck?

Saddam would delay the inspectors until threatened with force during the Clinton Admin. He was playing games with IAEA inspectors for what fucking reason. Come on Cleatus tell us.



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbass.....Powell showed our *intel photos that showed Saddam's troops were moving stuff around prior to IAEA inspectors showing up* at those sites.
> ...


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 3, 2012)

finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh dumbfuck, you just said we found WMD in Iraq but then claim Scott Ritter said there was none. You need to read your own lies.
> ...



Messiah Obamination?

LMFAO

You know you might actually sound credible if you didn't spend so much time quoting Rush verbatim. You give your hand away by having to rely on someone else to tell you how to think and at the same time making it so OBVIOUS!

This is so retro-Bush era!

Don't like what someone says....attack them personally and discred them...."Scott Ritter wears girls underwear!"

Just because that worked for Karl Rove don't assume it will work for you.

EVERYBODY and anybody who dared tell the truth about the wrongs they saw within the Bush administration got the ax and then the inevitable tar and feather smear treatment from Rove and his conservative media puppets! And there were a LOT of them!

Colin Powell- for favoring diplomacy over the rush to war and later for daring to tell the truth about the Nigerian yellowcake uranium claims....that they were bullshit....even before Joseph Wilson published his op-ed piece in the New York times saying the same thing. By the way, Wilson was thoroughly smeared for his honesty as well and his wife's cover as a C.I.A. operative blown!

Paul O'Neil-for expressing misgivings about Bush's tax cuts in wartime. Of course he turned out to be RIGHT, but was slandered and smeared as well.

Lawrence Lindsey-for coming up with the first ACCURATE estimate of what the war in Iraq was actually going to cost. He turned out to be RIGHT of course but the administration didn't want to hear it and OF COURSE they didn't want the public to hear it so once again they had to distract with a lot of noise about his "credibility" just like you are trying to do here with Scott Ritter!

Then of course there were Generals Anthony Zinni and Eric Shinseki-they were just a little too TRUTHFUL for this administration!

And who can forget Richard Clarke? He was the frigging ANTI-TERRORISM chief! He dared tell the truth in his book that Bush had actually dropped the ball on Al Qaida in his obsession with Iraq. Boy! That REALLY pissed them off and sent the spin machine into high gear!


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

I see you have the Burger King late shift today. 

Rush has never used the term Obamination, I coined that term HERE. 

People jumped off the Iraq War bandwagon once it was no longer "hip" among the Democraps and cocktail party circuit. They are sellouts that put their own popularity above the nation. 

Scum like you put getting Democraps re-elected over the security of this nation.



Bloodline said:


> LMFAO
> 
> You know you might actually sound credible if you didn't spend so much time quoting Rush verbatim. You give your hand away by having to rely on someone else to tell you how to think and at the same time making it so OBVIOUS!
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

That scumbag lives in his parent's basement with his blow up girlfriend. He spends his day inventing wild conspiracy stories about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and soon Romney. 

Bush will soon be tied to helping Saddam's uncle rise to power within the Baath party. 



JRK said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Each post shows the rants of a madman.
> ...


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Dumbfuck, Powell showed intel pics Saddam's military digging and moving material at sites that were targeted by the IAEA inspectors. I even saw more beyond what he exposed, dumbfuck.
> 
> It is was discovered Iraq was being tipped off about where the IAEA inspectors were going since some Euro trash on the teams were pro-Saddam, probably getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food scam. Saddam knew where the IAEA inspectors wanted to go and so he would delay them until he could clean up the sites.
> 
> ...



Hey dumbfuck, there was the entire period AFTER the war, when we had conquered the whole nation, Saddam was dead, and we could go where we wanted and find anything.  That's when we found the other 5% of components of Saddams WMD program from pre-'91, that the UNSCOM team did not find.  Kaye and Deulfer wrote there reports, with FULL ACCESS to everything, they never found any new WMD.  That is why the public turned on Bush and the repubs, led us into an expensive war over WMD that did not exist.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

Bloodline said:


> finebead said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



As I recall it was 9-15-2001 when GWB told Saddam and the world
Clean it up or else
Congress agreed that force maybe needed to enforce the terms of surrender, Oct 2002
Hans Blix infamous speech of just how far Saddam was out of compliance was 1-27-2003
We invaded 3-2003

RUSH? RUSH to war?
That was 18 months


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

You're such a fucking idiot. 

The IAEA inspections were BEFORE we invaded in Iraq in 2003. 

The Iraq and Sryria border was not monitored by the IAEA, so whatever Saddam was moving most likely went across that border. Assad and Saddam had a common enemy in Israel, so working together to maintain their power was in both's best interests.

There are WMD in Syria....



finebead said:


> Hey dumbfuck, there was the entire period AFTER the war, when we had conquered the whole nation, Saddam was dead, and we could go where we wanted and find anything.  That's when we found the other 5% of components of Saddams WMD program from pre-'91, that the UNSCOM team did not find.  Kaye and Deulfer wrote there reports, with FULL ACCESS to everything, they never found any new WMD.  That is why the public turned on Bush and the repubs, led us into an expensive war over WMD that did not exist.


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> You're such a fucking idiot.
> 
> The IAEA inspections were BEFORE we invaded in Iraq in 2003.
> 
> ...



You are such a fucking idiot, because it does make a fucking bit of difference WHEN the fucking IAEA inspections were, they didn't find anything, AND after the war when we could freely inspect where ever we wanted Kaye and Deulfer didn't find anything.  In fact nobody found anything anytime, but Bush and Cheney said Iraq had WDM, they sent Powell to tell the UN their lies, and they were wrong.  They were always wrong, and it is proven now.  The public handed the repubs their hats as they should have.  Stop trying to obfuscate by jumbling timeframes, that won't work.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Tardy, don't forget to notice how full of shit you are, in traffic.  GWs gang used a lying informant, to dupe Congress.  Nobody found WMDs.  Saddam was a CIA client-asset, in 1958, and GWH konked out, on the road to Basra, so GW could be a lying hero.
> ...


You are a punk-fuck, who ducks the following issues, on any thread you post:
1.  Saddam was a CIA client, so the US teed him up, during the Iran-Iraq War, during Desert Storm, and during Iraqi Freedom, and they teed off on Iraq, twice, complete with a lot of d.u. damage;
2.  GHW Bush got cold feet on the road to Basra, so GW Bush could use a lying Iraqi informant, from Operation Curveball, to lie to Congress, about WMDs;
3.  Nobody found WMDs;
4.  You keep lying and circle-jerking with your wingpunk Tardzerk, about anything at all, including yellowcake, which was lying around in drums, since the 1981 Israeli raid.

Fuck you, you illiterate piece of shit.  Why don't you and your Log Cabin buddy Tardzerk roll your daisy chain down the road, and see if you can pull your heads out of each others' asses in time, to vote for Meat?  He's barbecuing himself, for President.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

Idiot....odds are Saddam moved the WMD out of Iraq under the nose of the IAEA with help from the Russians. 

Why the hell was Saddam sending his military to sites to move stuff BEFORE the inspectors arrived a day or more later??? Why did he have spies on the IAEA if he had nothing to hide.

Come on dumbfuck.....explain it.



finebead said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > You're such a fucking idiot.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

You're just insane. 

You should be locked up by the Feds for mankind's sake.



bobgnote said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 3, 2012)

So let's just sum up the dumbfucks on this thread to end this shit.

1) Saddam didn't have WMD despite using it on the Kurds and some WMD found in post-2003 Iraq.
2) Saddam played hide and seek with the IAEA inspectors for over a decade for really no reason.
3) Saddam had spies inside the IAEA teams and sent his military to sites before the IAEA to move stuff for no reason.
4) The Syrian and Iraqi border wasn't monitored by the IAEA but of course Saddam would never move his WMD across that border with help from Russia. 
5) Democraps supported the war effort until it was dragging out and no longer cool, so Bush is a war criminal for starting the war.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> So let's just sum up the dumbfucks on this thread to end this shit.
> 
> 1) Saddam didn't have WMD despite using it on the Kurds and some WMD found in post-2003 Iraq.
> 2) Saddam played hide and seek with the IAEA inspectors for over a decade for really no reason.
> ...



Al Qaeda was in Iraq, pre war
Saddam had open the gates through Syria for any and all terror groups to kill Coalition troops

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.[24] Earlier, in a telephone interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, said: "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."[25] Satellite imagery also picked up activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq's WMD programs.[26]

ISG formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."[27][28][29]

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Libs have showed nothing but hate, for reasons that make no sense
GWB was at best a blue dog democrat. I supported W and feel that he was a much better president than the media reported 7 days a week, 24 hours a day


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

Let's sum up some more:

The British wouldn't give Kurds or Palestinians a homeland, after WWI, and Wilson let them fuck up, so now, Americans want to shoot up the Middle East with depleted uranium or nuke it.  Now the Americans guarantee Israel's oil supply, and they put up guys like Saddam and the Shah, with the CIA, so Maliki supports the Shiite Assads, with Iran, now.  We should never support Israel, since that rolls all this shit into balls, you wingnazis can goose-step into and track around.

Saddam was even around in the first place because the CIA was behind him.  But claiming he killed Kurds wasn't a reason to go to Iraq and stay there, given GHW Bush chickened out, after Basra.

Democrats are dirtbags for Israel, but some of them noticed GW Bush lied in his 2003 State of the Union address and speeches to Congress, claiming WMDs.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was just a circle-jerk, by lying, murdering ripoffs.  Using Kurds as an excuse to invade in the 21st Century is shit, since GHW Bush kak'd out, when Schwarzkopf had Saddam on the run, but then GHW Bush tells Iraqis to revolt, they did it, and Saddam fucked the Kurds and southern Shiites right up.

Crimes of Saddam Hussein

All Saddam's majors are in the 1980s, except for the GHW Bush-incited rebellion, when the US didn't help anybody, after starting the shit.  So then, you think it's OK to go over there, in 2003, stay around, shoot up the place, and pretend some sort of costly but stupid objective was accomplished.

That's great, Tardzerk!  Stay the dumbfuck course, you lying dumbshit.  Quit lying about the fucking yellowcake, since Saddam had no way to get new yellowcake, after the Israelis bombed his nuclear facility in 1981, and the Russians weren't helping him.  He didn't have any new cake, wingpunk!


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> Al Qaeda was in Iraq, pre war


I'm still waiting for you to show proof of a cooperative relationship.



JRK said:


> Saddam had open the gates through Syria for any and all terror groups to kill Coalition troops.


So you're saying Syria would come to the rescue of one of its enemies?



JRK said:


> The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, *according to two unnamed defense sources *that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.


You gotta love those "unnamed sources".


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

Look, let's stay the dumbfuck course for Jerkoffski of the Illiterati, who pasted 'conjecture.'

And what does your Zionist source of conjecture have to say about how Israel bombed Saddam in 1981, so he had no way to get new yellowcake?  Trucks go to Syria, so I guess we'd better get over there and bomb Bashar Assad to shit, since now there's no end of shit, happening, including planes flying to Iran, to keep the US from trashing them, during any invasion.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

    4,486 American soldiers killed
    33,184 American soldiers wounded
    Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
    Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
    Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
    Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
    The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
    The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Al Qaeda was in Iraq, pre war
> ...



I never claimed Al Qaeda and Saddam was doing any-thing together
OBL did in a speech, but not me
In an audiotape released on February 11, 2003, bin Laden explained why. It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one, bin Laden argued. There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.

*Bin Ladens message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist infidel, but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddams forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a convergence of interests as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda with open arms and strictly and directly controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaedas earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.*

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies

calling me names will not last long
your still strike 2
It will not lat long


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Idiot....odds are Saddam moved the WMD out of Iraq under the nose of the IAEA with help from the Russians.
> 
> Why the hell was Saddam sending his military to sites to move stuff BEFORE the inspectors arrived a day or more later??? Why did he have spies on the IAEA if he had nothing to hide.
> 
> ...



Dumbfuck, PROVE IT.  It's your story.  Either that, or just whine your way home.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 3, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:
> 
> ...


*Luckily the Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi civilian deaths:*

"In October 2004, Human Rights Watch estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had been killed since the U.S. bombing and invasion started in 2003. The State Department neglected to condemn this mass destruction of civilians, and the Pentagon responded to the report not with a denial but with an announcement that it did not keep a tally of civilian deaths."

Double Standards on Civilian Deaths


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:
> 
> ...


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> I never claimed Al Qaeda and Saddam was doing any-thing together
> OBL did in a speech, but not me


Bin Laden also offered to kill Hussein for the Saudi's, if they so desired.

The Saudi's said, _"Thanks, but no thanks!"_


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
The true terrorist 
The US and the all volunteer armed services do not go around starting these un fortunate events
Lets not forget the 33 other countries that were there with us

At no time have I commented that any war was a good thing

Let me add another item
The cost of the war has never made the truth meter truth to me any-way
this all volunteer force gets the same treatment where ever they serve
the key word volunteer
food
shelter
Germany
Korea

And the bases closures in Saudi and Kuwait cost has never been taken off as well as the savings we got from supporting the UN and its failed over sight


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Evidently anyone who isn't American isn't "exceptional", so their lives are worth even less than the lives of our soldiers to these people.


.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

Mac 
your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
Use better judgement in life young man. You only get one chance

We may dis agree, but that was stupid and you will never overcome it until you face it


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac
> your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
> you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
> Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
> ...





I guess I'm "dis-ignored" again.

Tell ya what, JRK, I'd be happy to re-post it but I'm not going to wade through dozens of pages to find it.  Go ahead and re-post it.  It was a poster of little boy who was speaking to the grave of his dead soldier father about he would take care of Mom for his Dad.

My point, and you're choosing to miss it, is that the little boy should not have to be in such a position.  He, his father and his mother are paying for *your* fucked up ideology.  But since people like *you* are so fond of throwing people like his father into hopeless war situations, the tragic scene will doubtlessly be repeated many, many times.

Re-post it, then lie to us again how you care about the troops.

.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> Mac
> your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
> you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
> Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
> ...


You write like some sniper took part of your skull and brain out, with an AK.

Do you mind going over my posts, since you went all the way back, for Mac?  I wouldn't mind reading about how the US set all this up, from the get-go, with support for Israel, CIA support for Saddam and the Shah, then conditional enmity for Saddam, all directed, to maximizing casualties, which Mac and loinboy and the rest of us have been trying to educate you about.

But you are a dumbshit, who can barely write.  Your reading must be as bad.  Looks like your wingpunk Tardzerk took off on a picnic.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > Mac
> ...



What is there to go over?
all You do is attack people
With that I told you you were on strike 2, that last rant put you on strike 3
I have no reason to waste one minute of my life talking to people who think a conversation has the words "barley write" "dumbshit" along with other insults

Good luck in life, with that attitude you will need it. Like I told Mac about his thread about a fallen soldier, you only get one chance in life, your heading in the wrong direction

IGNORED


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
> The true terrorist


I blame the ones responsible.  We were not attacked by Hussein.  We "chose" to attack him.  Since that was "our choice", "our decision", why would I blame anyone else but us?



JRK said:


> The US and the all volunteer armed services do not go around starting these un fortunate events


Are you on crack?  Not only did we start this war, we made up lies to drum up support.



JRK said:


> Lets not forget the 33 other countries that were there with us


And probably persuaded with faulty evidence.



JRK said:


> At no time have I commented that any war was a good thing


Thank God for that.



JRK said:


> Let me add another item
> The cost of the war has never made the truth meter truth to me any-way
> this all volunteer force gets the same treatment where ever they serve
> the key word volunteer
> ...


I was referring of the cost to the taxpayers with no direct benefit in return.



JRK said:


> And the bases closures in Saudi and Kuwait cost has never been taken off as well as the savings we got from supporting the UN and its failed over sight


That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## JRK (Jun 3, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
> ...



We did not choose to attack anyone
we choose to enforce the terms of surrender as well as the 33 other countries
And as far as the "lies"
Congress voted to use force to enforce those terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to to remain in power, other wise known as UN regulations
If Saddam had removed his self from power after it was clear he was not going to do what he said he would, none of this happens
It was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was not in compliance, not even close
Hand Blix made this clear on 1-27-2003


Update 27 January 2003
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing Security ...

There was over 500 munitions Saddam had that were classified as WMDs and presented to congress in 2006 as evidence
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Saddam was selling oil on the black market as well

You brought up the cost. The closing of those bases saved us billions as did the funding the UN required over those years to try and enforce those regulations

You keep forgetting Al Qaeda also had made the beginning of a new force in Iraq. Those munitions we found in Iraq had lethal munitions left in there war heads (remember japans subway gassing?) there was also a large stock pile of "yellow cake"

The Intel was exaggerated by some, but by no means was Saddam innocent of the very items he had agreed to rid his country of. Some were found weeks before ewe invaded. We had no choice but to remove him after 9-11
He made a choice to ignore those terms, not the coalition

Look you have a right to dis agree with these events. But the very reason I started this thread was because of the lies that you now repeat (I do not blame you)

Saddam lied
Saddam did have weapons he was suppose to have destroyed
Saddam did have chemicals in this munitions he was to have destroyed
Saddam had Chemicals in there bare form that he was not suppose to have
Saddam got caught with long range missiles he was suppose to have destroyed
These where all items that Saddam had agreed to have destroyed, he was given a chance to remove his self from power and he chose war, not the coalition


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK is spamming again, the same old talking points that have been clearly rejected as not accurate in context.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> We did not choose to attack anyone


Are you saying you're not responsible for the things you decide to do?



JRK said:


> we choose to enforce the terms of surrender as well as the 33 other countries
> And as far as the "lies"
> Congress voted to use force to enforce those terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to to remain in power, other wise known as UN regulations
> If Saddam had removed his self from power after it was clear he was not going to do what he said he would, none of this happens


I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one and I'll cut the check!



JRK said:


> It was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was not in compliance, not even close
> Hand Blix made this clear on 1-27-2003


I've already debunked this with your own source.

BTW, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words, 
_"remained siezed on the matter"?_



JRK said:


> Update 27 January 2003
> www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing Security ...
> 
> There was over 500 munitions Saddam had that were classified as WMDs and presented to congress in 2006 as evidence
> ...


Old, decaying cans of sarin, forgotten and buried in the desert, does not constitute WMD's.



JRK said:


> Saddam was selling oil on the black market as well


So what!  That's none of our business and certainly no reason to start a war that caused over a million people to lose their lives.



JRK said:


> You keep forgetting Al Qaeda also had made the beginning of a new force in Iraq. Those munitions we found in Iraq had lethal munitions left in there war heads (remember japans subway gassing?) there was also a large stock pile of "yellow cake"


The only reason Iraqis tolerated al Qaeda, was because they were targeting American's.  Other than that, they were either thrown in jail or driven out of the country.



JRK said:


> The Intel was exaggerated by some, but by no means was Saddam innocent of the very items he had agreed to rid his country of. Some were found weeks before ewe invaded. We had no choice but to remove him after 9-11


Why bring up 9/11 when we're talking about Iraq?  

One had nothing to do with the other.



JRK said:


> He made a choice to ignore those terms, not the coalition


A member state can not unilaterally decide for the UNSC what is to be done next.  All percieved violations should have been referred back to the UN for review. 

 We are not kings of the world who can do whatever we fucking please!



JRK said:


> Look you have a right to dis agree with these events. But the very reason I started this thread was because of the lies that you now repeat (I do not blame you)


You have my permission to blame me for everything I say (and do).



JRK said:


> Saddam lied
> Saddam did have weapons he was suppose to have destroyed
> Saddam did have chemicals in this munitions he was to have destroyed
> Saddam had Chemicals in there bare form that he was not suppose to have
> ...


You do know Bush and Blair were found guilty of   "crimes against humanity" for starting an "unprovoked war of aggression", don't you?

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg Principles?


----------



## Bloodline (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > So let's just sum up the dumbfucks on this thread to end this shit.
> ...



How did you "support" W?

By never questioning or thinking twice about anything he ever said or did like the rest of his (ahem!) "supporters?

Thought so!

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, *according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. *

Gotta love those *unnamed* sources huh?

Almost something like credible! Interesting that they released  their PROPAGANDA to the Washington Times. Why not the Post I wonder?

Probably because these "sources" never existed in the first place but that wouldn't of course matter to the Times! Their mission during that period was to disseminate pro-Bush administration propaganda 24-7!


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 3, 2012)

JRK said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



How many Americans had to die and be wounded?..How much of our treasure was borrowed into the future and unreported at the time it was wasted?  Just so an idiot like you could say that the "Iraqis" hung Saddam?  

I haven't been following this thread but your statements in response to my post are insane.

Put me on your ignore list please.  We have nothing left to discuss.


----------



## JRK (Jun 4, 2012)

loinboy said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > We did not choose to attack anyone
> ...



I do not recall the UN having jurisdiction on the US
Congress made it clear
If he refuses to enforce the very terms he agreed to surrender on, get rid of him
we did with 33 other countries
That link has NEVER been de bunked
Update 27 January 2003
read it and count the number of resolutions the UN had issue with
Why bring up 9-11?
In his book, At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet discussed at length the intelligence concerning al Qaedas presence in Baghdad. Tenet says the CIA found more than enough evidence connecting Saddams Iraq to al Qaeda. The CIA was particularly concerned about a group of al Qaeda operatives and allies  including Ayman al Zawahiris lieutenant, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (the first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq), and Abu Ayyub al Masri (who stepped in for Zarqawi as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq but was killed in 2010)  *who had set up shop in Baghdad prior to the war.

Abu Ayyub al Masris widow has since confirmed the CIAs pre-war intelligence, explaining that she and her husband moved to Baghdad in 2002.*

In 2001, with Bin Ladins help [Kurdish extremists] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the 
Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Still Clueless About Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard
GWB made it clear, you harbor Al Qaeda, were coming after them

Saddam brought all of this on to Iraq


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2012)

Obama apparently has a gig planned for next week that will turn the invasion and the bushies upside down,

He and H. Clinton will be dressed in MiB black costumes as if they were W and MR, hold up flash pens to a picked "audience" of voters, and try to flash them into forgetfulness of the Bush years.

That is a hoot,


----------



## JRK (Jun 4, 2012)

The Liberals are repeating lies, you cannot blame them
Saddam was not told to rid his country of some WMDs
He was not told that selling oil on the black market to buy arms would be okay
He was not given permission to allow Al Qaeda in Iraq

Saddam should have done the right thing, none of this happens and as far as the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam loyalist, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, that number is about 10% of 1 million



Iraq Body Count project	105,052 &#8212; 114,731 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 162,000 civilian and combatant deaths[1][2]	March 2003 to January 2012
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][3][4][5]	109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[6][7]	January 2004 to December 2009
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now you can depend on actual numbers or by left wing questionnaires
The Un had 35,000 in 06, the US had over 6 million violent crimes in 2010


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 4, 2012)

JRK has forgotten that Powell calls the war and his part in it the worst blot in his career.  Bush told Rove if he had believed the WMDs would not appear, he never would have invaded Iraq.

Then throw on the dead, the wasted American treasure, the degradation of the Reserve and NG because of tour after tour after tour, and the frittering away of American good will in the world.  Add the fact that Iraq drifts into a Shiite alliance with Iran as Iraqi women slip into sharia, one can conclude . . .

JRK is working for the interest of America's enemies.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 4, 2012)

JRK said:


> I do not recall the UN having jurisdiction on the US


If you're going to use the violation of a UN resolution as justification for an attack on Iraq, you cannot later do an about-face (on that same resolution) and claim you're not required to honor its requirements.

It either has jurisdiction, or it does not.  You can't have it both ways.



JRK said:


> In his book, At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet discussed at length the intelligence concerning al Qaedas presence in Baghdad. Tenet says the CIA found more than enough evidence connecting Saddams Iraq to al Qaeda. The CIA was particularly concerned about a group of al Qaeda operatives and allies  including Ayman al Zawahiris lieutenant, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (the first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq), and Abu Ayyub al Masri (who stepped in for Zarqawi as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq but was killed in 2010)  *who had set up shop in Baghdad prior to the war.
> 
> Abu Ayyub al Masris widow has since confirmed the CIAs pre-war intelligence, explaining that she and her husband moved to Baghdad in 2002.*
> 
> ...


That story was proven to be bogus.




> _Another story seized on by the hawks appeared in The New Yorker in spring 2002. The author, Jeffrey Goldberg, had traveled to northern Iraq, where he was given access to prisoners from Ansar al-Islam, a small group of Islamist guerrillas around Halabja.* On the basis of one interview with a former drug-runner, Goldberg made it seem that Ansar was part of Al Qaeda and also linked to Saddam's intelligence services. *Ansar soon became the key link, not only to Al Qaeda but to chemical warfare as well. The group was said to be developing poisons -- in other words, weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Woolsey called the story proof positive; Cheney called it "devastating."
> 
> *It was indeed a great story, but nothing has since turned up to sustain the key elements. What evidence has emerged about Ansar's external links suggests the group may have been more closely tied to an Iranian security faction than to Baghdad.* Its headquarters were obliterated in the opening stages of the war, and no traces of poisons turned up in the debris. The man reported to be the link between the group and Saddam is nowhere to be found. While the CIA was excoriated by Woolsey, Perle and others for not taking Goldberg's account more seriously, *the Ansar lead appears to have collapsed on its own*._


Keep in mind, if al Qaeda was operating in the Kurdish northern province, they were doing so in full view of American forces.  Which suggests collaboration with the US, rather than Iraq.

As far as CIA intelligence findings, we all know it was cherry-picked by the OSP.


> _Office of Special Plans, was formed, according to published reports, after the 9-11 terrorist attacks to find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It was disbanded late last year, Feith said during a briefing with reporters in May. *About a dozen former CIA intelligence officials have been quoted as saying that the Office of Special Plans cherry-picked intelligence, much of which was gathered by unreliable Iraqi defectors, to make a stronger case for war and delivered directly to Vice President Dick Cheneys office and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice without first being vetted by the CIA*._


Bush told the British government he was going to go after Hussein and was going to "fix the intel" around the policy.  That is your smoking gun according to the Downing Street Memo's, so stop trying to bullshit everyone.


----------



## JRK (Jun 4, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Huggy the ignore button works both ways
I put people on ignore who have no class
Calling me an idiot because we dis agree on the events that took place from 1991 through 2003 would be strike 1

What is insane about this? I cam tell you whats insane is that any-one would defend Saddam and think that those who volunteered to go fight your battles might deserve the time and effort put forth by some if us to understand why
Saddam was a mad man  
He was evil
after 9-11 what would have done with this man? with Al Qaeda setting up base in Iraq in addition to his not cooperating with the UN?
Saddam murdered 1 million of his own people and had attacked Kuwait and Israel for no  more reason than they were his neighbors

  In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

Are you kidding me?

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

And let's all chase after Saddam, since like OBL, he was a CIA-client, in the first place!  Let's shoot the whole place up with depleted uranium!

It was a circle-jerk!  I guess that's why you are a jerkoff, for 215+ pages, Jerkoffski.  Looks like Tardzerk took off and left you here, sitting on a fence, trying to make a dollar, out of fifteen cents.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 5, 2012)

JRK: Snip

The facts: JRK's false narrative been torn apart.

The American neo-cons will never have power in government again, and eventually their trials will happen.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Let's invade Israel!  They are conspiring against the American people, the US Constitution, statutes, and land:

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel (date undetermined, in an Israeli cabinet meeting):

"Don't worry, we [Israel] control the United States." 

(In response to concerns raised by another cabinet member about Sharon's ["the butcher of Beirut"] invasion and brutality in the West Bank.) 

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/02/11/15727361.php

Let's go get that King of Bahrain!  Like Saddam, he's this Sunni tyrant, ruling a Shiite majority, but he's propped up by the Americans, since the US 5th Fleet is over there.  He's killing all kinds of people.

We'd better go get Bashar Assad, Jerkoff.  Except there's a Russian base over there, in Syria.

From Snoop Doggy-Dogg: "A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie."  -from a USMB sig.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JRK: Snip
> 
> The facts: JRK's false narrative been torn apart.
> 
> The American neo-cons will never have power in government again, and eventually their trials will happen.



Hey Fakey Jake, how's that recall of Walker that all you brain dead leftists declared a done deal going?

Lost another one, did ya Comrade?


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 5, 2012)

JRK said:


> The Liberals are repeating lies, you cannot blame them
> Saddam was not told to rid his country of some WMDs
> He was not told that selling oil on the black market to buy arms would be okay
> He was not given permission to allow Al Qaeda in Iraq
> ...



JR continues with his myths and half truths.

We were told by the Bush administration that Iraq had stockpiles of new WMD and we knew where they were.  

Iraq was under UN Sanctions that limited their ability to re-arm his conventional army as well as limiting their ability to reconsitute a WMD program.  Members of the Bush administration (Rice and Powell) revealed this in early 2001.

The Government of Iraq no more invited al Queda into their country that the US goverment invited the drug cartels into  El Paso.

Iraq was not a threat to the US.  Iraq was not involved in 9-11.  The was no UN mandate to use military force in Iraq to disarm them or remove Saddam from power.

The Iraq invasion and occupation was a failure.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Let's invade Israel!  They are conspiring against the American people, the US Constitution, statutes, and land:
> 
> "Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
> -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online
> ...


While we're at it, how about electing a congress willing to investigate Israel's assault on *Liberty*?

"The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] 

"The combined air and sea attack *killed 34 crew members *(naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3]

"At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1]

While several different governmental investigations have focused on aspects of the attack, Israel's deliberate assault on the US naval vessel represents the only crime of its kind never investigated by the full US Congress.

And it's one more crime that will never be redressed as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Republican or Democrat in the voting booth. 

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK (Jun 5, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Let's invade Israel!  They are conspiring against the American people, the US Constitution, statutes, and land:
> ...



You want to start a thread about that event, be my guest
Not here
These events had 0 to do with Saddam, 
Al Qaeda
Weapons
Anthrax
Hans Blix 2003 speech, 1-27-2003
yellow cake
Kuwait
Millions murdered
Millions tortured
Millions raped
Paying terrorist to commit suicide and kill innocent people
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers | Fox News
The men at the top table then opened Saddam's checkbook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for checks written in U.S. dollars. 

Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $25,000 U.S. and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $10,000 U.S. each. 

The $500,000 U.S. doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 5, 2012)

In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 6, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Why would anyone want to make a phony claim that Iraq was a success? Bush lied his way through the whole ting with the help of Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of his axis of evil. The Murder of over a million innocent people many which were children is an act of terrorism as well as cowardess. 

Iraq was just one of the many blood for oil wars supported by nothing but cowards that think war are fought on their Nintendo.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 6, 2012)

.

I notice JRK is still avoiding the horrific price our soldiers and their families have paid and will continue to pay for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps one of our neocon friends can help him with some spin.  And be sure to include how he "supports the troops" in there somewhere.

.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Jun 6, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



Are you missing anything??? 

How about Iraq was a stable country before the idiot cowboys invaded .. must more stable than it is now?

How about the fact that Iraq is now firmly in the hands of Iran?

*Iran steps in to prop up Iraq's Maliki* 
Iran steps in to prop up Iraq's Maliki - UPI.com

How about Iran is the country who duped the idiot cowboys into attacking Iraq in the first place and removing Saddam, their arch enemy?

How about most of the oil contracts went to CHINA?

How about this ...

*Bomb hits Shi'ite site in Baghdad, 26 killed*
Bomb hits Shi'ite site in Baghdad, 26 killed | Reuters

How about this ...

*Police: Suicide attack kills 18 in Iraq*
Police: Suicide attack kills 18 in Iraq - CNN

There is a HELL of a lot that you are missing ... along with the trillions of dollars missing from the US Treasury wasted on a failed cowboy adventure.


----------



## JRK (Jun 6, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.



Muslims are killing Muslims
If not we would have 0 issues
Al Qaeda went to Iraq to set up base prior to invasion
Saddam invaded Kuwait 1991, he got his ass kicked, he surrendered, he agreed to terms that he later ignored

And killed millions of Muslims

The coalition that went into Iraq went there to clean up a mess that began in the 70s


----------



## JRK (Jun 6, 2012)

jack113 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I do not know where you guys get this 1 million number
Saddam is the only one who killed that many and as far as any-one being killed after we invaded?
Al Qaeda as well as Saddam loyalist killed, not the coalition
You ever heard of ROE? might want to do some DD on it
One last item, there was 6 million violent crimes in US last year, why are they different than the 100,000 murdered by Al Qaeda and Saddam loyalist in the 10 years of war that where just as innocent as most of the 6 million in the US?

Why is that?


----------



## kaz (Jun 6, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.



Wow, I oppose the US military presence in the Middle East and I don't think the US government should be giving aid to Israel (or anyone else).  I'd prefer you're not on my side, thank you very much.

BTW, the tin foil on your head is slipping off a tad, I think Bush might be able to read your thoughts right now, better tighten it up before he locates you and sends his evil army of flying kangaroos to assassinate you for knowing what he's up to in his secret bunker.


----------



## JRK (Jun 6, 2012)

BlackAsCoal said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



In 2007 we had a deficit of 163 billion
in 2010 it was 1.5 trillion with an addition of 1 trillion in spending from 2007 that had 0 to do with any war


There was the house by well over 2/3 rds majority
The senate, same
The will of the people, same
The President
Hans Blix made his case for the UN, 1-27-2003 and then tried to back track when they realized The 34 countries that went and enforced those resolutions meant business

This was no Cowboy event, it took 18 months of begging to Saddam post 9-11 to give up on Saddam doing the right thing

BTW, 6 million people where victims of violent crimes in the US 2010
Iran had nothing to do with that either


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

JRK, all you and your former supporter Tardzerk proved is with that lying Iraqi informant, GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the DOD had the support of liars, at least one retard, and whatever mad-dogs were running around.

To you, killing and despoliation is some sort of positive outcome, to a CIA-generated nuisance, which GHW Bush could have solved, but didn't, so now, you are some sort of demented apologist, who is too stupid, to add up horrendous costs, of a circle-jerk, brought full circle, by GW Bush's lies and other misconduct.  You need some therapy.  And learn to write.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 6, 2012)

JRK said:


> 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> DONE
> 2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
> DONE
> ...



we would explain it to you but your just a hypocrite troll who only sees what he wants to see and whines when when you insult someone first and they insult you back afterwards.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 6, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
> 
> How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?



The fact that so many people agree with George on this proves what a hypocrite whiner and troll you are as well.Damn I thought this troll thread starter left this site a long time ago.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 6, 2012)

gekaap said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > to start with the war was Saddam's fault
> ...



exactly,you get nowhere though when you try and explain this stuff to the troll.He always ignores facts that there were not any WMD'S and that Hussein had nothing to do with it.


----------



## JRK (Jun 6, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > 1) REMOVE SADDAM
> ...



I have never insulted one person on this message board and you know that to be true
If you think as such, ignore me


----------



## JRK (Jun 6, 2012)

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.
> ...



So what do you think we should have done with Al Qaeda?
And what is it exactly drives you people to defend Saddam and Al Qaeda?
You attack GWB who has killed no-one (without terrorist, no-one loses)

There where 6 million violent crimes in the US in 2010. Saddam has said to have killed 1 million of his own people as well as paid terrorist 25,000 to have killed 1000s of other innocent people.
Speaking of tin hats, why is it you attack W and not mention BHO?
His drone attacks makes the rest of those who had use of them to look "weak"


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.
> ...


Hmm, Jerkoffski, you don't insult anything, but other peoples' intelligence, with your bullshit, which ignores all the facts, issues, and circumstances worth noting.

Your wingpunks insult, you started this punk thread, and you keep coming back, with rants, which suggest you are some kind of sock.  So eat shit and die, my friend.

Muslims have been killing Muslims, a lot, since the death of the Prophet Muhammed, in our year 632 C.E.  The Shiites went off with Muhammed's relative, Ali, while the Turks came down, to impose Sunni Islam, which has been gaining on the Shiites, ever since.

The US is an ally of Turkey, so it would support Sunnis, except Al Queda is Sunni, and so was Saddam, who like Usama bin Laden was a former CIA client.  This is where you and your wingpunks start having real trouble, Jerkoff, while the Russians support Shiites, and they have a base in Syria, controlled by the Shiite Assad, who rules a Sunni majority.  The US supported the Sunni tyrant Saddam and the King of Bahrain, over Shiite majorities.  So the US and Russia are always trying shit.

The US is always getting Muslims to kill, since the US supports the UK, Israel, and Turkey.  Turkey sometimes gets tough, but it keeps down because the days of Attaturk supplanted the Ottoman regimes.  Because of all the intrigue, stupid people are needed, to support all the clowning and killing, which the US starts, the Russians also help, and which will continue, now.

YOU and your wingpunks selectively support killing, in Iraq, which I find idiotic.  Without retards and mad-dogs wanting to go kill, the killing wouldn't continue.  But fucktard idiots like you and your mad-dogs are always around, since fucktards and mad-dogs make kids, and the dirt-doing continues.  But I am sorry you are stupid, and your dogs are rabid.  Fuck you, with sugar on it, bitch.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 7, 2012)

JRK said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Al Queda should have been hunted down like dogs no matter what country gives them refuge.

To say we should not have invaded and occupied Iraq is not defending Saddam.  Why do you think it is?

The Bush administration launched a coordinated campaign to deceive the US Congress and Citizen into beleiving that Saddam not only was a threat to the worlds remaining superpower by reconsititution and producing WMD, but also was connected in someway to al Queda and the 9-11 attacks.  Furthermore by destablizing Iraq and not providing enough security forces to ensure the saftey of Iraq citizens the Bush administration should be held responsible for the ensuing chaos.

US crime stats have nothing to do with Iraq.

Iraqis support for a particular faction in a regional conflict did not threaten the US.  Nor is such support uncommon in the Arab world.  For example Saudi Arabia sends more money into Palestine that Iraq. 

I have two problems with drone attacks.  First blind attacks on unknown targets is reprehensible.  Second, attacking the first responders to an initial attack is also reprehensible.

But to be honest I don't think Jr. will repsond with anything other than his usual, if at all.


----------



## jack113 (Jun 7, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The Iraq war was the greatest terrorist attack ever created by any country since Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Iraq war: Mission failed - Iraq war - Salon.com

Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs - CNN


----------



## jack113 (Jun 7, 2012)

The West should stay out of Syria. The Middle East countries should be handling the Syrian problem. The West just looks at this as another way to step in and put a puppet regime in place that will turn on them like all the puppets do.


----------



## JRK (Jun 7, 2012)

jack113 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006  The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. S*arin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.*
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990

I guess CNN  missed this

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says


----------



## shock (Jun 8, 2012)

SCO VS ISRAELI EFFORTS TO DESTABILIZE MENA 



Employing brinksmanship to a degree hitherto unknown,
and doing so by means of its US, EU, UN GCC proxies, 
Israel continues to press the West.

especially the US,

to continue to seek to destabilize Syria, 
and thus weaken Syria vis a vis Israel, 
just as Israel has succeeded in destabilizing other MENA nations.



SCO, especially as represented by China and Russia,
has long opposed Israel's efforts to so employ NATO
as a means of weakening SCO's own position in MENA

Readers of any consequence
who have no knowledge of SCO
should research SCO and note its strength 
standing alone,
and also as SCO is supported by its allies---that now may include Turkey as well as Afghanistan,

and consider in their own minds how long SCO might believe itcan afford to permit its own position, 

especially in MENA's oil rich regions,
to be further weakened.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 8, 2012)

JRK said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Since the Joint Resolution required a continuing threat, the unusable munition found still do not rise to the level of national threat against the world remaining superpower no matter how many time this guy bring them up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 8, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JRK: Snip
> ...



Hey, ComradeUncensoredFascist, go back and see what I said: that if he retained his office, he would be kissing ass to all constituents.  You are not a conservative, just a reactionary fake GOP.  So have a good one.

Oh, JRK has been getting ass kicked all over this thread.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Jun 8, 2012)

The real question is why would anyone claim the Iraq War period?


----------



## JRK (Jun 8, 2012)

Poli_Sigh said:


> The real question is why would anyone claim the Iraq War period?



My intent was to put closure to this un fortunate event
This is not to make this event to be glorified, yet to help those who care understand why it was we had to go there with 33 other countries and rid the world of Saddam as well as Al Qaeda setting up base there in 02
Weapons
Terror
Lies
This was not a claim, it was respect for those who went and sacrificed as well as though as those who have been lied to by the press and the left who used this to try and win political points with those 1/4 truths and out right pure lies

Our troops and this countries leadership that included 29 Dem senators and many in the house as well
Mostly our troops, that is why


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

Glory isn't what happened, though.  The CIA happened.  Lies happened.  Treachery happened.  Despoliation happened.  Death happened!  Hypocrisy persists.

Shit is what happened.  While we wait, shit is about to happen, again, since assholes are in charge, of the USA, where we, live.  We never get problems defined and worked out.  See why not?  People who celebrate shit that is going to happen again have the wrong agenda.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 9, 2012)

JRK said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is why would anyone claim the Iraq War period?
> ...



Yes, Iraqi civilians have been terrorized by shi'ites, sunnis, Americans, and mercenaries.

Yes, the bushie lies have been exposed.

No WMDs as described by the bushies were ever found.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2012)

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.
> ...


*Ask Bush if he can manage this math:*

"By 1948, there were approximately *1.35 million Arabs and 650,000  Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean,* more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times." 

You should worry more about ostriches and less about tin-foil hats.
The Jewish State would not exist without war whores like Bush and their useful idiots like you.
Do your flying kangaroos have any thoughts on ethnic cleansing? 

"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1603;&#1576;&#1577;*, an-Nakbah, lit. 'disaster', 'catastrophe', or 'cataclysm'),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Civil War that preceded it..."

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > In 1948 one third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms on the majority of their countrymen and women. 700,000 Arabs and others were purged from land their families had lived on for generations; there would have been no need for Saddam to pay "martyrs benefits" if the Jewish occupation of Palestine hadn't been supported by the same interests who supported the US occupation of Iraq. Your government sends its hired killers half way around the world to maim, murder and displace millions of innocent Muslims. Clean your own house before you worry about Saddam's.
> ...


The one issue you continually dodge is that there are exactly 0 Muslims killing Christian children for money in your hometown.

Saddam's crimes in Iraq are dwarfed by an illegal US invasion and occupation that has murdered, maimed, incarcerated or displaced one in four Iraqis since March of 2003.

As to your neo-con crocodile tears for "a mess that began in the 70s" tell us why Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld made the mess worse in the 80s:

"An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. 

"The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran." 

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein by Jacob Hornberger


----------



## JRK (Jun 16, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The US never provided anything to Saddam for the use to kill millions of his own people
To terrorize by paying families to sacrifice one of there own by blowing up them selves to kill and maim others
Iraqis dis placed after the 34 countries went into Iraq to remove Saddam were done by Saddam loyalist, Al Qaeda as well as other radicals
Without terrorist, no war
without Saddam, no war

root cause, not blame those who went there to clean the mess up


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

JRK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > JRK said:
> ...



The Reaganites supported Saddam, thus they are implicit in Saddam terrorizing his own people.  The bushies violated international law and invaded Iraq.  Saddam could have been toppled without invasion.  With bush and cheney, however, war was inevitable.


----------



## JRK (Jun 16, 2012)

fir you Jake
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq&#8217;s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam&#8217;s &#8216;coercion&#8217; toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power,&#8221; the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat&#8217;s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose &#8220;emir&#8221; was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden&#8217;s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.
WSJ: Saddam-terrorist connections get no media coverage « Hot Air


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 16, 2012)

Strange that we haven't heard of the massive civil war in Iraq predicted by the idiots here......crickets because not much is going on over there. So much for Buuuuuuuuuush ruining the lives of Iraqis.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

For you, JRK.  The only myths about Iraq are yours.  WMDs, as described by the bushies, did not exist.  No Iraqis were on the twin towers planes and no Iraqi money was involved in it.  The bushies waged unlawful war.  End of story.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Strange that we haven't heard of the massive civil war in Iraq predicted by the idiots here.......



The killing continues, but the shi'ites have realized that buying off the sunnis is good policy.  However, Iraq is growing closer to Iran, and that is a fact.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 16, 2012)

No dumbfuck, the "civil war" you predict hasn't happened. 

Mostly because only a few radicals on both sides want to fight whereas most Iraqis see a brighter future working together. 

Also, Iran is too busy helping Assad and worrying about us/Israel bombing their ass in the next year than to help their scumbag friends in Iraq. 

Once Iran is brought under control, assholes like you won't have anything to lie about regarding US policy in the middle east because most countries will then be normal functioning countries on the world stage, instead of what they were under Saddam, Assad and the Iranian mullahs. 



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Strange that we haven't heard of the massive civil war in Iraq predicted by the idiots here.......
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> No *fuck me*, the "civil war" you predict hasn't happened.  Mostly because only a few radicals on both sides want to fight whereas most Iraqis see a brighter future working together.   Also, Iran is too busy helping Assad and worrying about us/Israel bombing their ass in the next year than to help their scumbag friends in Iraq.  Once Iran is brought under control, assholes like you won't have anything to lie about regarding US policy in the middle east because most countries will then be normal functioning countries on the world stage, instead of what they were under Saddam, Assad and the Iranian mullahs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You need to read what I wrote, and then respond to that, instead of the voices in your head.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Jun 16, 2012)

Nive cover-up, asswipe.

Your predictions for Iraq haven't come true, but you continue to lie and lie here to make your boner against Buuuuuuuuush look good. 

Syria has WMDs but we haven't bombed them, why is that? oh, it's because they haven't recently invaded their neighbor like Saddam did. Now if Syria attacks Israel, Jordan or Turkey then Assad will become Saddam II.

So behave as a dictator, stay within your own border unless you want a US led coalition blowing your ass up. 



JakeStarkey said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > No *fuck me*, the "civil war" you predict hasn't happened.  Mostly because only a few radicals on both sides want to fight whereas most Iraqis see a brighter future working together.   Also, Iran is too busy helping Assad and worrying about us/Israel bombing their ass in the next year than to help their scumbag friends in Iraq.  Once Iran is brought under control, assholes like you won't have anything to lie about regarding US policy in the middle east because most countries will then be normal functioning countries on the world stage, instead of what they were under Saddam, Assad and the Iranian mullahs.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

The killing continues in Iraq: fact.

Iran and Iraq draw more closely: fact

If we attacked Syria, you would condemn the admin: fact.

You attacked the admin for carefully orchestrating the overthrow of Khadaffi: fact.

If Assad attacks his neighbors, the Arab League will destroy him: fact.

Your silly far righty talking points merely point you out as the dupe and running dog of those who hate America.



GoneBezerk said:


> Nive cover-up, *"I admit I am an" asswipe*.  Your predictions for Iraq haven't come true, but you continue to lie and lie here to make your boner against Buuuuuuuuush look good.   Syria has WMDs but we haven't bombed them, why is that? oh, it's because they haven't recently invaded their neighbor like Saddam did. Now if Syria attacks Israel, Jordan or Turkey then Assad will become Saddam II.  So behave as a dictator, stay within your own border unless you want a US led coalition blowing your ass up.


----------



## JRK (Jun 16, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> No dumbfuck, the "civil war" you predict hasn't happened.
> 
> Mostly because only a few radicals on both sides want to fight whereas most Iraqis see a brighter future working together.
> 
> ...



what people like Jake fail to understand is that in this country we have people killing people every day for a little rock that makes them hi for 30 minutes
the media spins what happens in Iraq as it was Ws fault, but who do we blame for the 6 million violent crimes in the US last year?
Every-one I know that was in Iraq said only most just want ot feed there faimly and want no part of war nor terror, sadly Saddam, Al Qaeda and others think different
30 people killed in Iraq is front page news, yet 30 killed in the US daily is ignored
Whats the diff?
Saddam killed a million, mostly with gas according to the NY times

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was known for its severe violations of human rights.
Secret police, torture, mass murder, rape, abductions, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.
Contents  [hide] 
1 Documented human rights violations 19792003
2 'Saddam's Dirty Dozen'
3 Number of Victims
3.1 Other atrocities
3.2 Iraq sanctions
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

What people like JRK miss are these facts:

The killing continues in Iraq: fact.

Iran and Iraq draw more closely: fact

If we attacked Syria, you would condemn the admin: fact.

You attacked the admin for carefully orchestrating the overthrow of Khadaffi: fact.

If Assad attacks his neighbors, the Arab League will destroy him: fact.

Your silly far righty talking points merely point you out as the dupe and running dog of those who hate America.



JRK said:


> what people like Jake fail to understand is that in this country we have people killing people every day for a little rock that makes them hi for 30 minutes   DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PREMISE
> the media spins what happens in Iraq as it was Ws fault, but who do we blame for the 6 million violent crimes in the US last year?  DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PREMISE
> Every-one I know that was in Iraq said only most just want ot feed there faimly and want no part of war nor terror, sadly Saddam, Al Qaeda and others think different
> 30 people killed in Iraq is front page news, yet 30 killed in the US daily is ignored Legally belonged to the domain of the UN, not the US
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 16, 2012)

JRK would jump on Obama and the admin either way if the USA did or did not attack Syria.

You have no credit, JRK, none.


----------

