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

[JRK]

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?

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.

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]

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

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]

And we are Godwin'd.

 

[georgephillip]

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]

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

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?

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

Go play in traffic, georgiepordgie

 

[georgephillip]

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

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?

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

Go play in traffic, georgiepordgie

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

 

[idb]

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

 

[kaz]

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

Am missing something here?

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]

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]

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?

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

Go play in traffic, georgiepordgie

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

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

At least you're consistent

 

[georgephillip]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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?

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

 

[konradv]

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]

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]

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 coneect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.

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]

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?

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"