Tony Blair: We blew it

[NightFox]

1. Blather.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of capabilities when it comes to reason and evidence, let me know when you come up with a valid reason and try not to die of old age first, k?.

2. Based on what we knew at the time, the invasion seemed a reasonable policy. Ignoring that sets us up for the next war, because we will have lost a historical example of war being waged on bad assumptions and intel.

Ahhh..NOW it's "based on what we knew at the time", check this out; I along with tens of millions of others knew at the time it was a colossal mistake and were very public about it, I'll leave it to you to guess who we should listen to the next time such idiotic proposals are put forward.

Why is that your goal? Are partisan points more important to you than avoiding a war?

I've already achieved my goal, I along with others in this thread have systematically dismembered your "argument", run the pieces through the wood chipper and buried it out back, everything else is just for entertainment purposes. Secondly I've already told you that I have no stake in "partisan points" but of course you'll just stick with your unsubstantiated claims about my motives, won't you? after all why admit you are wrong when you can simply double down on wrong, huh?

3. NOpe. Plenty of people blame American for the result in Iraq, all of it,

You should know since apparently you're one of 'em, I however respect those that admit their mistake in supporting it, those that don't deserve no respect at all.

even though much of it was from the failure of the Iraq People to be able to govern themselves and fight themselves. It certainly needs to be said. That is part of the lesson for next time.

So you're going to circle back to that ludicrous argument that the Iraqi People are somehow to blame for us invading their country, killing 10's of thousands of them and blowing a mountain of American blood & treasure in the process? I'll give you credit for one thing, once you sink your teeth into a fallacy you apparently never let go of it.

 

[paulitician]

Let's be real, if the U.S. and Great Britain didn't own the UN and International Justice System, many of its leaders would be standing trial for War Crimes. If any other nations had committed the Iraq War atrocity, its leaders would have been held accountable by now. But do you see any Americans or Brits on trial right now? Nope. And it will never happen.

ANy Soviet leaders ever get tried?

French?

If Russia or any other nation had committed the Iraq War atrocity, i do believe War Crimes charges would have been sought by the U.S. and Great Britain. Both nations routinely do the awful things it accuses others of doing. Yet how many Americans and Brits have you ever seen on trial? I wonder why?

 

[paulitician]

1. No one with an IQ above 70 believes that partisan nonsense. THey just say it to be dicks.

2. Fuck the UN.

3. I want the next time we want to remove a Muslim dictator to not have any illusions that the next guy in charge is going to be a brown George Washington.

NOthing in that statement indicates a desire to invade anyone.

Indeed a reasonable person, (if you know any?) might read that as a RELUCTANCE to invade anyone.

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

The U.S. wanted war with Iraq. It's as simple as that.

 

[paulitician]

Permanent War. That's the NWO Globalist Elite goal. If there is no Boogeyman to slay, they'll just invent one. Americans need to rethink their support for unjust and unwise policies like 'Regime Change.' They need to rethink supporting this permanent war.

 

[Correll]

1. No one with an IQ above 70 believes that partisan nonsense. THey just say it to be dicks.

2. Fuck the UN.

3. I want the next time we want to remove a Muslim dictator to not have any illusions that the next guy in charge is going to be a brown George Washington.

NOthing in that statement indicates a desire to invade anyone.

Indeed a reasonable person, (if you know any?) might read that as a RELUCTANCE to invade anyone.

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

The U.S. wanted war. Hussein allowed inspections for years. Nothing was ever found. And who are we to declare 'No Fly Zones' and Regime Change?' We don't have a moral authority to make such declarations. Bottom line is, the U.S. wanted the Iraq War. It wanted a puppet regime to plunder the oil. Simple as that.

Please link to show that we have ever paid less than market rates for Iraqi oil.

 

[paulitician]

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

The U.S. wanted war. Hussein allowed inspections for years. Nothing was ever found. And who are we to declare 'No Fly Zones' and Regime Change?' We don't have a moral authority to make such declarations. Bottom line is, the U.S. wanted the Iraq War. It wanted a puppet regime to plunder the oil. Simple as that.

Please link to show that we have ever paid less than market rates for Iraqi oil.

Western oil & gas corporations are now flourishing in Iraq. They're doing well. I didn't say you the average American Citizen would ever benefit from the Iraq War. All average Citizens got out of it, was sending their kids to die and paying the enormous costs.

Only the Globalist Elite Fatcats have benefited from the Iraq War. The war wasn't about you or 'Freedom.' The war was about getting a puppet in there and plundering Iraq's resources.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I did not cite the UN. I cited the terms of the cease fire.

The UN, original function was diplomacy, not Authority.

You libs are trying to inflate it's importance. Which is why it should be destroyed.


As to which country will be invaded next, I have no idea.

Do you think we will never invade another country?

I already told you that the ceasefire was between the UN and Iraq, the US can't decide to enforce UN resultions without UN approval.

And of course you guys will invade another country, how else can you justify a $1 trillion war budget?

I'm thinking Iran but obviously you have some other target in mind

 

[Correll]

1. No one with an IQ above 70 believes that partisan nonsense. THey just say it to be dicks.

2. Fuck the UN.

3. I want the next time we want to remove a Muslim dictator to not have any illusions that the next guy in charge is going to be a brown George Washington.

NOthing in that statement indicates a desire to invade anyone.

Indeed a reasonable person, (if you know any?) might read that as a RELUCTANCE to invade anyone.

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what wikepedia has on his comments BEFORE the war.

"

1. No one with an IQ above 70 believes that partisan nonsense. THey just say it to be dicks.

2. Fuck the UN.

3. I want the next time we want to remove a Muslim dictator to not have any illusions that the next guy in charge is going to be a brown George Washington.

NOthing in that statement indicates a desire to invade anyone.

Indeed a reasonable person, (if you know any?) might read that as a RELUCTANCE to invade anyone.

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what Wikepdia has on him and what he had to say BEFORE the war.

You are letting your self be fooled by a Monday Morning Quarterback, are you?


"During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment.

Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Think of that. What if Saddam didn't play those games and all of this was laid to rest back in 92 or 93?

 

[paulitician]

I did not cite the UN. I cited the terms of the cease fire.

The UN, original function was diplomacy, not Authority.

You libs are trying to inflate it's importance. Which is why it should be destroyed.


As to which country will be invaded next, I have no idea.

Do you think we will never invade another country?

I already told you that the ceasefire was between the UN and Iraq, the US can't decide to enforce UN resultions without UN approval.

And of course you guys will invade another country, how else can you justify a $1 trillion war budget?

I'm thinking Iran but obviously you have some other target in mind

We're in a state of Permanent War. If there is no Boogeyman to slay, the Globalist Elites will just invent one. When will Americans tire of this endless war? Doesn't seem like it's gonna be anytime soon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged the 2003 invasion of Iraq played a part in the rise of the Islamic State militant group, and apologised for some mistakes in planning the war, in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

"Blair's decision to send troops to back the U.S.-led invasion is still a live political issue in Britain, where a six-year public inquiry into the conflict is yet to publish its findings.

"Asked whether the offensive was the principal cause of the rise of Islamic State, which now controls large areas of Iraq and neighbouring Syria, Blair said there were "elements of truth" in that."

Britain's Blair says 2003 Iraq invasion played role in Islamic State rise

Yes, the D's were complicit in voting to allow the Bush Administration to use force, but it was exclusively the Bush Administration that not only used force, but exacerbated the schism in Islam which created the what we now know as the Islamic State Killing Machine.

The issue now is not to rewrite history, it is to figure out the best way to prevent its evil intent to spread around the world. Force in only one way to do so, and the force applied can be aided by our country in terms of planning and machinery, but never again should we put our sons and daughters in harms way.

 

[whitehall]

They blew it the day they started whole effort.

What a terrible tragedy.

Bush was a moron. The GOP was all to bloodthirsty. The democrats voted for it before they voted against and will bear the blood of everyone who died with equal weight.

Get some historic perspective for God's sakes. Every conflict in the bloody 20th century happened during a democrat administration. More Americans died in training accidents during WW2 then the entire Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an executive order and bungled the mission to such a degree that we lost about 50,000 Americans during the three year quagmire and had to settle for a truce dictated by the N.K. and political instability that lasted fifty years. LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam with a fake crisis and then set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless European country when he was literally caught with his pants down in the Oval Office. Democrats voted for boots on the ground in Iraq and then the freaking traitors undermined the mission. Barry Hussein abandoned the Troops in Afghanistan while he destabilized just about every Mid-East country so that the muslem brotherhood could take over.

 

[Correll]

1. Blather.

Once again you demonstrate your lack of capabilities when it comes to reason and evidence, let me know when you come up with a valid reason and try not to die of old age first, k?.

2. Based on what we knew at the time, the invasion seemed a reasonable policy. Ignoring that sets us up for the next war, because we will have lost a historical example of war being waged on bad assumptions and intel.

Ahhh..NOW it's "based on what we knew at the time", check this out; I along with tens of millions of others knew at the time it was a colossal mistake and were very public about it, I'll leave it to you to guess who we should listen to the next time such idiotic proposals are put forward.

Why is that your goal? Are partisan points more important to you than avoiding a war?

I've already achieved my goal, I along with others in this thread have systematically dismembered your "argument", run the pieces through the wood chipper and buried it out back, everything else is just for entertainment purposes. Secondly I've already told you that I have no stake in "partisan points" but of course you'll just stick with your unsubstantiated claims about my motives, won't you? after all why admit you are wrong when you can simply double down on wrong, huh?

3. NOpe. Plenty of people blame American for the result in Iraq, all of it,

You should know since apparently you're one of 'em, I however respect those that admit their mistake in supporting it, those that don't deserve no respect at all.

even though much of it was from the failure of the Iraq People to be able to govern themselves and fight themselves. It certainly needs to be said. That is part of the lesson for next time.

So you're going to circle back to that ludicrous argument that the Iraqi People are somehow to blame for us invading their country, killing 10's of thousands of them and blowing a mountain of American blood & treasure in the process? I'll give you credit for one thing, once you sink your teeth into a fallacy you apparently never let go of it.

1. I see no reason to rehash months of discussion and debate.

2. I'm not sure how that relates to your analogy with North Korea, but whatever.

3. No. I have rejected such positions. I do not know why you are misrepresenting my position. Are you worried that the truth isn't your friend?

4. Not what I said. Obviously. Why are you lying?

 

[tyroneweaver]

ibtl He's trying to get hillary elected

 

[Correll]

Let's be real, if the U.S. and Great Britain didn't own the UN and International Justice System, many of its leaders would be standing trial for War Crimes. If any other nations had committed the Iraq War atrocity, its leaders would have been held accountable by now. But do you see any Americans or Brits on trial right now? Nope. And it will never happen.

ANy Soviet leaders ever get tried?

French?

If Russia or any other nation had committed the Iraq War atrocity, i do believe War Crimes charges would have been sought by the U.S. and Great Britain. Both nations routinely do the awful things it accuses others of doing. Yet how many Americans and Brits have you ever seen on trial? I wonder why?

The SOviets did far worse in Afghanistan. Any call to put Gorby in front of a judge?

I wonder why?

 

[rightwinger]

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what wikepedia has on his comments BEFORE the war.

"

How can you on one hand use a UN resolution as justification to invade and then say.....fuck the UN

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what Wikepdia has on him and what he had to say BEFORE the war.

You are letting your self be fooled by a Monday Morning Quarterback, are you?


"During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment.

Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Think of that. What if Saddam didn't play those games and all of this was laid to rest back in 92 or 93?

You are talking ten years earlier. Saddam had done nothing in those ten years

In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.[7]

 

[Correll]

Permanent War. That's the NWO Globalist Elite goal. If there is no Boogeyman to slay, they'll just invent one. Americans need to rethink their support for unjust and unwise policies like 'Regime Change.' They need to rethink supporting this permanent war.

After the fall of the Soviet Union military spending tanked and did so though out the GHWBush and Clinton administrations.

It took a really long time for the Elite to find a new "Boogeyman". Almost as if they were not driving policy.

 

[Correll]

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

The U.S. wanted war. Hussein allowed inspections for years. Nothing was ever found. And who are we to declare 'No Fly Zones' and Regime Change?' We don't have a moral authority to make such declarations. Bottom line is, the U.S. wanted the Iraq War. It wanted a puppet regime to plunder the oil. Simple as that.

Please link to show that we have ever paid less than market rates for Iraqi oil.

Western oil & gas corporations are now flourishing in Iraq. They're doing well. I didn't say you the average American Citizen would ever benefit from the Iraq War. All average Citizens got out of it, was sending their kids to die and paying the enormous costs.

Only the Globalist Elite Fatcats have benefited from the Iraq War. The war wasn't about you or 'Freedom.' The war was about getting a puppet in there and plundering Iraq's resources.

Providing a service for a profit is hardly "a puppet regime to plunder the oil."

OIl is fungible. If the Elite was worried about Oil Production they would have left Saddam there to keep the pumping going.

 

[Correll]

I did not cite the UN. I cited the terms of the cease fire.

The UN, original function was diplomacy, not Authority.

You libs are trying to inflate it's importance. Which is why it should be destroyed.


As to which country will be invaded next, I have no idea.

Do you think we will never invade another country?

I already told you that the ceasefire was between the UN and Iraq, the US can't decide to enforce UN resultions without UN approval.

And of course you guys will invade another country, how else can you justify a $1 trillion war budget?

I'm thinking Iran but obviously you have some other target in mind

Was it UN forces that "ceased fire" in the First Persian Gulf War?

Nope, it was US forces.

You are now reduced to playing games of semantics.


"You guys"? Because democrats never invade other countries? LOL!!

 

[Correll]

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what wikepedia has on his comments BEFORE the war.

"

Because the "UN" is not, imo, an authority that Iraq defined that justifies the war, but that it failed to live up to it's obligations.

This fits in just fine with my rejection of the idea that the UN is in any position to pass judgement on US actions.

Fuck the UN.

Yet it was a supposed violation of a UN resolution that was used as justification

By the way...it turned out the UN was right about Iraq

The UN was right? How?

Did they predict that there were no WMDs?

Did they predict that the Iraqi would not be able to do democracy together?

Did they predict that the Iraqis would not be effective fighters?

Google Hans Blix and find out what the UN thought

Bush was afraid Blix would prove there were no WMDs and attacked before he could prove it

This is what Wikepdia has on him and what he had to say BEFORE the war.

You are letting your self be fooled by a Monday Morning Quarterback, are you?


"During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment.

Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Think of that. What if Saddam didn't play those games and all of this was laid to rest back in 92 or 93?

You are talking ten years earlier. Saddam had done nothing in those ten years

In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.[7]

MY quote is from Hans Blix's report to the UN from 14 February 2003, less than one month BEFORE the war.

You are quoting from a year AFTER the war to support your argument that the UN was right BEFORE the war.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Was it UN forces that "ceased fire" in the First Persian Gulf War?

Nope, it was US forces.

You are now reduced to playing games of semantics.


"You guys"? Because democrats never invade other countries? LOL!!

Nah, "you guys" because I'm not an american. The last time the Dutch committed war crimes is a few decades ago.