Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[Jarhead]

I do not care what your up to with this non stop spamming
this thread is dead bud
You want to keep talking about things that mean nothing
go for it
i am done wit this one

We won
WE had just cause
God Bless

It was a monumental stregic blunder.

Their justification was misleading and often based on lies.

Would Jesus support a war of aggression?

Strategic blunder? I would not use the word blunder. The unexpected put us in a position to change our strategy. Would you consider it a blunder that our military leaders did not expect the insurgents to use schools and the children as human sheilds? If yes, then fine, it was a blunder.

The lies part? Sorry, I dont go for it. Pelosi would have loved to see Bush fry. If congress were truly lied to she would have most definitely had a non partisan investigation and hearing...and the President would have had to go through an impeachment proceeding if in fact he lied. Thjose that claimed he lied were deomcrats that were up for re-election and forced to asnwer questions of why they voted for the war and now against the war.

It was not an act of aggression in my eyes. It was a necessary act that was prompted by a country that refused to adhere to the terms of a treaty...a trreaty that was designed to allow the country its sovereignty in return for assurances that no fuither act of aggression would be levied on its neighbors.

 

[8537]

I do not care what your up to with this non stop spamming
this thread is dead bud
You want to keep talking about things that mean nothing
go for it
i am done wit this one

We won
WE had just cause
God Bless

It was a monumental stregic blunder.

Their justification was misleading and often based on lies.

Would Jesus support a war of aggression?

Strategic blunder? I would not use the word blunder. The unexpected put us in a position to change our strategy. Would you consider it a blunder that our military leaders did not expect the insurgents to use schools and the children as human sheilds? If yes, then fine, it was a blunder.

I'm quite sure our military leaders knew what to expect. It's not like this was the first time we had experience with this. The flowers and liberators and reconstruction-will-pay-for-itself talk was purely for public consumption.

 

[JRK]

The issue with Iraq was How strong Al Qaeda was and how many people they had waiting for us before we invaded
Iraqis were not the people we were fighting after the first week
Google Al Qaeda Iraq, there is a ton of information out there on the subject

 

[Jarhead]

It was a monumental stregic blunder.

Their justification was misleading and often based on lies.

Would Jesus support a war of aggression?

Strategic blunder? I would not use the word blunder. The unexpected put us in a position to change our strategy. Would you consider it a blunder that our military leaders did not expect the insurgents to use schools and the children as human sheilds? If yes, then fine, it was a blunder.

I'm quite sure our military leaders knew what to expect. It's not like this was the first time we had experience with this. The flowers and liberators and reconstruction-will-pay-for-itself talk was purely for public consumption.

Well, then the complaint should be with our military leaders as they diod not prepare for what they should have expected. As you have seen during this administration, if our President overrides the decisions of our military leaders, those leaders speak their mind to the public. Yes, there was infighting well down the road....but no military leader said that Bush refused to prepare for the insurgency using children as human shields.

The liberators talk was a political necessity. The WMD's were not found and the opposition started to play politics with it. I would expect the administration to try to smooth it over.

You know...sort of what we are seeing now with lines like "the economy was worse than we thought" and "imagine how bad uynemployment would be without the stimulus".

Come on 8537...you know political rhetoric when you see it. Both sides use it to defend themselves when the opposition trys to capitalize on a negative result of a policy.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The issue with Iraq was How strong Al Qaeda was and how many people they had waiting for us before we invaded
Iraqis were not the people we were fighting after the first week
Google Al Qaeda Iraq, there is a ton of information out there on the subject

Yes, when Bush left Afghanistan to invade the wrong country and removed Saddam he allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq to fight.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until Bush invaded

 

[8537]

Strategic blunder? I would not use the word blunder. The unexpected put us in a position to change our strategy. Would you consider it a blunder that our military leaders did not expect the insurgents to use schools and the children as human sheilds? If yes, then fine, it was a blunder.

I'm quite sure our military leaders knew what to expect. It's not like this was the first time we had experience with this. The flowers and liberators and reconstruction-will-pay-for-itself talk was purely for public consumption.

Well, then the complaint should be with our military leaders as they diod not prepare for what they should have expected.

Well there was obviously pressure from Rumsfeld and the administration to keep the force small - that's why we didn't go in with a massive front, we went in with 100K or so. And you're right, the people who made that decisions should be held accountable. But so should the people who decided we should invade in the first place, regardless of force size.

The liberators talk was a political necessity.

Well, it's only a necessity if you plan to use it as justification for invading.

You know...sort of what we are seeing now with lines like "the economy was worse than we thought" and "imagine how bad uynemployment would be without the stimulus".

Except the record has demonstrated that the economy WAS much worse than we - Republicans, democrats, Keynesians, Austrians, Monetarists across the board - thought. with the assistance of final data we can now see the depth of that time better.

Come on 8537...you know political rhetoric when you see it. Both sides use it to defend themselves when the opposition trys to capitalize on a negative result of a policy.

Certainly! It's just a slightly different standard when you're taking a nation to war. But I fully understand that there are optics to consider (on both sides)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not as bad as Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin or Hitler tho...

Pol Pot took it to another level tho.... Progressives like Hanoi Jane made sure we got our asses kicked in Nam so 4,000,000 Cambodians were murdered...

Yeah, only in progressive land is an 8-year-old a general and is capable of carrying out executions...

Of course that was around the time Prairie Fire was written by the Weatherman.

1 in 33 with Saddam
Hanoi Jane, I guess those on this message board who would attack Bush and ignore Saddam's ruthlessness about in the same place she is if you think about it, just alike
Never thought about it that way

Cambodia is what happens without US intervention....

I'm a libertarian as well so that probably seems odd...

Vietnam is what happens WITH US intervention. You wanted to spend another 50,000 American lives trying to make Cambodia another Vietnam? Can you frame that in a sufficiently eloquent argument that the mothers of drafted, dead sons could appreciate?

 

[JRK]

we won in Iraq
we fought people who have tried to kill us
we were defending the country

it is not even the same set of events by every item that would come up from the draft to why

Google Al Qaeda in Iraq

 

[Jarhead]

The issue with Iraq was How strong Al Qaeda was and how many people they had waiting for us before we invaded
Iraqis were not the people we were fighting after the first week
Google Al Qaeda Iraq, there is a ton of information out there on the subject

Yes, when Bush left Afghanistan to invade the wrong country and removed Saddam he allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq to fight.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until Bush invaded

No. They were not.
But that does not mean the actiuon was not thought to be warranted.
You want to blame Bush for prompting Al Queda to come to Iraq.
I blame Saddam Hussein for not adhering to the terms of the treaty.
You may nbot be old enough to recall, but Iraq invaded Kuwait and pretty much took it over in a matter of hours. We stepped in and took charge of the situation. In essence we overcame Iraq and from a military standpoint, we owned it.
We had the choice to kick Hussein out or have him sign a treaty that was designed to allow him to keep totla control of his country and in return ensure the UN direct access at any time to oversee anything the UN deems as potential agressive preparation by Iraq.
Hussein adhered to it for several years and suddenly stopped allowing the inspections. This created concern...Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused. Bush told him pretty much the day the time and the location of the first aggressive strike if he does not comply with the treaty.


Just thought I would clear that up for you.

 

[trobinett]

Won what?

 

[Jarhead]

I'm quite sure our military leaders knew what to expect. It's not like this was the first time we had experience with this. The flowers and liberators and reconstruction-will-pay-for-itself talk was purely for public consumption.

Well, then the complaint should be with our military leaders as they diod not prepare for what they should have expected.

Well there was obviously pressure from Rumsfeld and the administration to keep the force small - that's why we didn't go in with a massive front, we went in with 100K or so. And you're right, the people who made that decisions should be held accountable. But so should the people who decided we should invade in the first place, regardless of force size.




Well, it's only a necessity if you plan to use it as justification for invading.

You know...sort of what we are seeing now with lines like "the economy was worse than we thought" and "imagine how bad uynemployment would be without the stimulus".

Except the record has demonstrated that the economy WAS much worse than we - Republicans, democrats, Keynesians, Austrians, Monetarists across the board - thought. with the assistance of final data we can now see the depth of that time better.

Come on 8537...you know political rhetoric when you see it. Both sides use it to defend themselves when the opposition trys to capitalize on a negative result of a policy.

Certainly! It's just a slightly different standard when you're taking a nation to war. But I fully understand that there are optics to consider (on both sides)

ahh...but the point is....this administration did not say "we think we know the severity of the economic situation and we think this stimulus would work."

To the contrary this adminstration said "we have analyzed this economy and I am following the advice of 100 of the worlds top economists who have assured me that this is the action we should take."

So you see, even you, 8537, sort of fell for the aftermath rhetoric...and it was designed to cloud the issue...and prompt you to accept the excuse.

And that is exactly wahT Bush did with the "liberators" thing....afterall, he never said we were going in as liberators...he said we were going in for WMD's.

Political rhetoric is designed to fool the believers.....not the non beloievers.

I will always see through democratic spin and rhetoric and you will always see through republican spin and rhetoric...but more often than not, you will beleive the democratic spin and rhetoric and I will believe the republicans.

Although I will admit...when they startted to use the "liberators" thing, I got angry. That was never part of the plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of Bin Laden's prime objectives was to do severe damage to the US economically. To the extent he lured us into what will eventually be something like a 3 trilliion dollar waste of treasure in Iraq,

he succeeded.

 

[JRK]

The issue with Iraq was How strong Al Qaeda was and how many people they had waiting for us before we invaded
Iraqis were not the people we were fighting after the first week
Google Al Qaeda Iraq, there is a ton of information out there on the subject

Yes, when Bush left Afghanistan to invade the wrong country and removed Saddam he allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq to fight.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until Bush invaded

No. They were not.
But that does not mean the actiuon was not thought to be warranted.
You want to blame Bush for prompting Al Queda to come to Iraq.
I blame Saddam Hussein for not adhering to the terms of the treaty.
You may nbot be old enough to recall, but Iraq invaded Kuwait and pretty much took it over in a matter of hours. We stepped in and took charge of the situation. In essence we overcame Iraq and from a military standpoint, we owned it.
We had the choice to kick Hussein out or have him sign a treaty that was designed to allow him to keep totla control of his country and in return ensure the UN direct access at any time to oversee anything the UN deems as potential agressive preparation by Iraq.
Hussein adhered to it for several years and suddenly stopped allowing the inspections. This created concern...Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused. Bush told him pretty much the day the time and the location of the first aggressive strike if he does not comply with the treaty.


Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
The Weekly Standard reports that, before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi ran a "terrorist haven" in Kurdish northern Iraq.[36] According to a March 2003 British intelligence report, Zarqawi had set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war. The report stated "Reporting since (February) suggests that senior al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city...These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received [chemical and biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]),...al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."[37]


the summer of 2002, Zarqawi may have settled in northern Iraq and joined the Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Coalition led Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.[citation needed] The Bush Administration used the possibility of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before March 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq; recently declassified Pentagon documents reveal that there was no substantial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.[16]

Now that does not mean that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq
what that comment states is there was no link with Saddam according to what you read here-in
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...sZXRDA&usg=AFQjCNGOiNeFh3xhGz7uzDHagNJmnNOMIA

 

[Nic_Driver]

The issue with Iraq was How strong Al Qaeda was and how many people they had waiting for us before we invaded
Iraqis were not the people we were fighting after the first week
Google Al Qaeda Iraq, there is a ton of information out there on the subject

Yes, when Bush left Afghanistan to invade the wrong country and removed Saddam he allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq to fight.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until Bush invaded

No. They were not.
But that does not mean the actiuon was not thought to be warranted.
You want to blame Bush for prompting Al Queda to come to Iraq.
I blame Saddam Hussein for not adhering to the terms of the treaty.
You may nbot be old enough to recall, but Iraq invaded Kuwait and pretty much took it over in a matter of hours. We stepped in and took charge of the situation. In essence we overcame Iraq and from a military standpoint, we owned it.
We had the choice to kick Hussein out or have him sign a treaty that was designed to allow him to keep totla control of his country and in return ensure the UN direct access at any time to oversee anything the UN deems as potential agressive preparation by Iraq.
Hussein adhered to it for several years and suddenly stopped allowing the inspections. This created concern...Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused. Bush told him pretty much the day the time and the location of the first aggressive strike if he does not comply with the treaty.


Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Thanks JarHead, let me clear it up further for you.

Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused.

No he didn't.

Hans Blix at the Iraq Inquiry | The Exile of Saddam was assured but Bush and Blair chose war

I have been criticised and people said that at the end of January 2003, "You were very critical of the Iraqis, but then 14 February and 7 March [2003] in your statements you became more upbeat". They say, "Why did you change your opinion?" I say, "Look here, if I am there to observe and the circumstances change I damn well ought to also change my report". That is what happened, the Iraqis became more cooperative.



We had some difficulties of access when we came to Saddam's palaces. I think there was a short delay of a quarter of an hour or something like that, but there was never a denial of access. So I think they had made up their mind.

Bush lied about this too.

 

[JRK]

remember
the failed stimulus cost more than the war in Iraq
also we have closed bases in Saudi as well as Kuwait
And the amount of monies we were given to the UN back hen I am sure is allot lower now
Fighting Al Qaeda we had no choice either
the Iraqi war would have been over in days with out there presence

Lets keep the truth out front. the 800 billion probably is closer to 600 and it also was an expense we did not ask for

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please stop with the constant spamming of the same question
I have answered that question before and gave you a link to an excellent web site
do your own DD
what ever you guys are up to has run its course

Your links have been thoroughly shown to be nonsense in any or all of your other threads.

 

[Jarhead]

Yes, when Bush left Afghanistan to invade the wrong country and removed Saddam he allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq to fight.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until Bush invaded

No. They were not.
But that does not mean the actiuon was not thought to be warranted.
You want to blame Bush for prompting Al Queda to come to Iraq.
I blame Saddam Hussein for not adhering to the terms of the treaty.
You may nbot be old enough to recall, but Iraq invaded Kuwait and pretty much took it over in a matter of hours. We stepped in and took charge of the situation. In essence we overcame Iraq and from a military standpoint, we owned it.
We had the choice to kick Hussein out or have him sign a treaty that was designed to allow him to keep totla control of his country and in return ensure the UN direct access at any time to oversee anything the UN deems as potential agressive preparation by Iraq.
Hussein adhered to it for several years and suddenly stopped allowing the inspections. This created concern...Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused. Bush told him pretty much the day the time and the location of the first aggressive strike if he does not comply with the treaty.


Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Thanks JarHead, let me clear it up further for you.

Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused.

No he didn't.

Hans Blix at the Iraq Inquiry | The Exile of Saddam was assured but Bush and Blair chose war

I have been criticised and people said that at the end of January 2003, "You were very critical of the Iraqis, but then 14 February and 7 March [2003] in your statements you became more upbeat". They say, "Why did you change your opinion?" I say, "Look here, if I am there to observe and the circumstances change I damn well ought to also change my report". That is what happened, the Iraqis became more cooperative.



We had some difficulties of access when we came to Saddam's palaces. I think there was a short delay of a quarter of an hour or something like that, but there was never a denial of access. So I think they had made up their mind.

Bush lied about this too.

Did anyone support Blix's account?

Not saying he is a liar, but given a choice to decide that Bush and Blair simply wanted to see men and women die and also ruin their legacies OR someone else lying to protect his reputation.....well.....I would go with someone else lying to protect his reputation.

Just saying'

 

[JRK]

Of all the accusations that have been made, not one person has shown anyone any evidence to back up those accusations
more go on the ignore list
why do you keep lying about this?
what are you people so scared of the truth for?

 

[Nic_Driver]

No. They were not.
But that does not mean the actiuon was not thought to be warranted.
You want to blame Bush for prompting Al Queda to come to Iraq.
I blame Saddam Hussein for not adhering to the terms of the treaty.
You may nbot be old enough to recall, but Iraq invaded Kuwait and pretty much took it over in a matter of hours. We stepped in and took charge of the situation. In essence we overcame Iraq and from a military standpoint, we owned it.
We had the choice to kick Hussein out or have him sign a treaty that was designed to allow him to keep totla control of his country and in return ensure the UN direct access at any time to oversee anything the UN deems as potential agressive preparation by Iraq.
Hussein adhered to it for several years and suddenly stopped allowing the inspections. This created concern...Bush told Hussein "you are giving us reason to think you are doing somethingt that may endanger our allies so please let us in so we can make sure you aren't"
He refused. Bush told him pretty much the day the time and the location of the first aggressive strike if he does not comply with the treaty.


Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Thanks JarHead, let me clear it up further for you.



No he didn't.

Hans Blix at the Iraq Inquiry | The Exile of Saddam was assured but Bush and Blair chose war

I have been criticised and people said that at the end of January 2003, "You were very critical of the Iraqis, but then 14 February and 7 March [2003] in your statements you became more upbeat". They say, "Why did you change your opinion?" I say, "Look here, if I am there to observe and the circumstances change I damn well ought to also change my report". That is what happened, the Iraqis became more cooperative.



We had some difficulties of access when we came to Saddam's palaces. I think there was a short delay of a quarter of an hour or something like that, but there was never a denial of access. So I think they had made up their mind.

Bush lied about this too.

Did anyone support Blix's account?

Not saying he is a liar, but given a choice to decide that Bush and Blair simply wanted to see men and women die and also ruin their legacies OR someone else lying to protect his reputation.....well.....I would go with someone else lying to protect his reputation.

Just saying'

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

 

[Jarhead]

Thanks JarHead, let me clear it up further for you.



No he didn't.

Hans Blix at the Iraq Inquiry | The Exile of Saddam was assured but Bush and Blair chose war



Bush lied about this too.

Did anyone support Blix's account?

Not saying he is a liar, but given a choice to decide that Bush and Blair simply wanted to see men and women die and also ruin their legacies OR someone else lying to protect his reputation.....well.....I would go with someone else lying to protect his reputation.

Just saying'

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?