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

[NoNukes]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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

Saddam 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]

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?

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]

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?

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

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

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

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

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]

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?

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

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

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]

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]

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

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

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

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]

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

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

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.

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]

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?

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

Look up PNAC.
There was clear intent well before 9/11.

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]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

#2?

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]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

#2?

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

Until the bad guys blow it up.

You are a right-wing progressive neo-con fool.

 

[Dr.Drock]

#2?

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

Until the bad guys blow it up.

You are a right-wing progressive neo-con fool.

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]

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

Until the bad guys blow it up.

You are a right-wing progressive neo-con fool.

Christians are fleeing a country with a gov't based on Islam run by a Hezbollah agent and that's his idea of stable.

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]

Until the bad guys blow it up.

You are a right-wing progressive neo-con fool.

Christians are fleeing a country with a gov't based on Islam run by a Hezbollah agent and that's his idea of stable.

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

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]

Christians are fleeing a country with a gov't based on Islam run by a Hezbollah agent and that's his idea of stable.

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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.[/QUOTE

you only get what your told
I DONT CARE

 

[Dr.Drock]

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?

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.[/QUOTE

you only get what your told
I DONT CARE

Not a single person has ever told me what I said (bolded above), however your talking points were puppeted for years by Iraq war apologists, but even most of them have abandoned them, leaving you alone on your island.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.[/QUOTE

you only get what your told
I DONT CARE

Not a single person has ever told me what I said (bolded above), however your talking points were puppeted for years by Iraq war apologists, but even most of them have abandoned them, leaving you alone on your island.

JRK is a progressive neo-con war puppet, who spouts like a little tea pot.

What a fool.