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

[JRK]

laughing at me?
damn you must be bored to think that much of me guys
This has found a place that is no fun
I stated the way i felt, you do not like
I do not care

 

[jgarden]

Republican Syndrome: Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Symptoms of ODD may include:

frequent temper tantrums
excessive arguing with adults
active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules
deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people
blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
often being touchy or easily annoyed by others
frequent anger and resentment
mean and hateful talking when upset
seeking revenge

http://scam.com/showthread.php?p=362592

Obviously the OP and his supporters are suffering from a terminal case of "REPUBLICAN SYNDROME!"

 

[JRK]

have a good one

 

[Hardball_Refuge]

Principles of the Just War
1.A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2.A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
3.A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
4.A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5.The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
6.The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
7.The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

*The board won't let me cite the URL: "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 15 posts or more."

well # 1 was meet when Blix stated on 1-27-2003 Saddam still had 6500 munitions, 8000 liters of anthrax and nerve gas after 10 years of resolutions
#2 was meet, the US congress did just that 10-2002
#3 was meet, see #1
#4 has been meet, a man who had killed 1 million Iraqis and would not adhere to Un resolutions is gone, a republic took its place, Improvement? night and day
#5, peace is established, far fewer people are being murdered in Iraq than here. If you claim there is no peace in Iraq then what is it we have here?
#6 okay, done
#7 Did a good job there also

whats the problem?
you see there is 1/2 of the truth there to your 1/2. Everything i have said is true

-What's the problem? Well, to state the thing simply, Iraq did not attack us. We went to war preemptively, which, by definition, violates the Just War Doctrine. I could argue the points you made. But since I'm new here, I don't want to come off as a know it all

 

[JRK]

I am going to make this as simple as I can
1) 10-2002 Congress approves for us to attack Saddam. No-one here has an issue with that
2) 1-23-2003 Hans Blix reports that there is 6500 munitions missing, Anthrax, and nerve gas No-one has an issue with that
3) we invade OMG
4) 500 +- munitions are found that are classified WMDS by the DOD, that evidence is presented to congress 2006, this is ignored
5) 500 Metric tons of yellow cake is old to Canada by the Iraqi govt, this yellow cake is never discussed before now and the number of stores on its life span are numerous. AP reports it was found by US troops in 03, This is ignored
6) Iraq and GWB agree 2011 is it, This is ignored
7) tits over, they have a republic in place, they have less violence than we do, we closed bases in Saudi and Kuwait that will save us billions each year there closed

That's it
what in gods name is so wrong with that?
its all I have ever said

If you dont like that, i cannot help that. I think the troops made this a huge success. Saddam could have prevented all of this

 

[JRK]

get it?

 

[IndependntLogic]

what surplus? that in the late 90s the GOP congress gave us?
big deficits came with big democratic elections
you got some proof to back up that claim about links to Iran after yesterday?
who is not working with China?

I am going to tell you again kid
chill out
the name calling is pre school, no-one will ever take you serious. (The word you're looking for here is "seriously" not serious.) if your worried about this countries (The word here would be countrys' not countries - which means more than one country. Is English your first language? If not, I understand these simple mistakes and am happy to help with this. I'm a helper! It's what I do. I help.) debt, Obama is your problem, not GWB (Yes. That would be why I am probably voting Romney in 2012. But I'm not so brain-washed that I can't see the mess Bush created. Only the sheeple follow that herders' belief)
Brain washed? can tell you this bud, Who ever brain washed me has allot more class than you do
Just because we dis agree does not make you have to say all those things you called me. and as far as those soldiers who died volunteering to fight a war so you could use there (The word is "their". Are you SURE we shouldn't be checking your papers?) sacrifice to make a point One of the things that I served in uniform to protect was the right to criticize my government. So you can if you don't like it. BTW, you've never criticized Obama's decisions concerning Afghanistan, Libya etc...? Good for you! You're special!
I would not do that if i was (The word is "were". Geez dude, how long have you lived here?)you, them (those) Marines take there (their)war business pretty seriously. I know. I played with them in Pendleton.

They did not go over there by choice so you can say they should not have been over there seems to me
but you go ahead and pretend that's your sacrifice to do what you want to with it, not I (um, this sentence makes sense to you, right? Must be a foreign thing...)

God bless all of them

Nice straw man. I state that the result of the Iraq war was not an over-all positive. You try to make it about Marines. People with weak points always try to change the subject.

So you threw the first volley and now you're getting emotional because I returned fire? Poor baby. What is that old saying about being able to dish it out?
I am chilled! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of us aren't angry - we're laughing at you
You're (or as your would put it "your") pretty entertaining. It's fun to see people actually buy into the bs fed to them by The Machine.

why is it you libs take all of this stuff so personal?
Change the subject? I am so tired of this subject
Whining, Crying, facts mean nothing. You served? good for you. that gives you a right to use that sacrifice those kids made any way you want to?

You want to know how I feel on this matter, start from the beginning
You want to talk to me like like man talks to another man, anytime, any day

"You Libs"

Most people define Liberal or Conservative based on someone's political views. Whackjobs?Definition: Anyone disagreeing with a whackjob on any issue.

Whining & Crying? You mean you? Well sweetheart, you're welcome to stop whining and crying any time you like.
I dealt in facts. You dodged them and tried changing the subject. Period. Lt's try direct questions and see if you keep dodging.
Do you claim the Iraq War didn't cost trillions?
Do you claim the Iraqis didn't refuse to spend their own money on rebuilding their country? That they didn't demand we continue spending our money and Bush caved?
Do you claim they didn't refuse to give us a shot right from the beginning at their oil contracts (from the rigs WE paid to rebuild) and gave them to China, our economic rival?
That their government has been deemed among the top 5 most corrupt in the world?
That they are not publicly aligning themselves with Iran and Syria?

Oops! Crap! Facts! Issues! Time for you to dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run...

Time for us to laugh when you do

 

[JRK]

Nice straw man. I state that the result of the Iraq war was not an over-all positive. You try to make it about Marines. People with weak points always try to change the subject.

So you threw the first volley and now you're getting emotional because I returned fire? Poor baby. What is that old saying about being able to dish it out?
I am chilled! What you seem unable to grasp is that the rest of us aren't angry - we're laughing at you
You're (or as your would put it "your") pretty entertaining. It's fun to see people actually buy into the bs fed to them by The Machine.

why is it you libs take all of this stuff so personal?
Change the subject? I am so tired of this subject
Whining, Crying, facts mean nothing. You served? good for you. that gives you a right to use that sacrifice those kids made any way you want to?

You want to know how I feel on this matter, start from the beginning
You want to talk to me like like man talks to another man, anytime, any day

"You Libs"

Most people define Liberal or Conservative based on someone's political views. Whackjobs?Definition: Anyone disagreeing with a whackjob on any issue.

Whining & Crying? You mean you? Well sweetheart, you're welcome to stop whining and crying any time you like.
I dealt in facts. You dodged them and tried changing the subject. Period. Lt's try direct questions and see if you keep dodging.
Do you claim the Iraq War didn't cost trillions?
Do you claim the Iraqis didn't refuse to spend their own money on rebuilding their country? That they didn't demand we continue spending our money and Bush caved?
Do you claim they didn't refuse to give us a shot right from the beginning at their oil contracts (from the rigs WE paid to rebuild) and gave them to China, our economic rival?
That their government has been deemed among the top 5 most corrupt in the world?
That they are not publicly aligning themselves with Iran and Syria?

Oops! Crap! Facts! Issues! Time for you to dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run...

Time for us to laugh when you do

some where in your attack I missed your facts
the Iraq war and its real cost will never be known. No-one took the time to take off the monies we were spending in Saudi and Kuwait in military bases that are now closed as well as the funding the UN was getting dealing with that mess. 1 trillion is probably close

The rest of that crap means nothing to me, it has no bearing on what we went to war for
I refuse to be dragged into a debate that I could care less about
and yes your no different than every whining liberal I have ever been around, I have never met a true conservative who took this stuff personal
Adults find a place to agree to dis agree
I found it with this a long time ago

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK is not an adult.

This is not a place to agree to disagree.

JRK is flatly wrong.

 

[IndependntLogic]

why is it you libs take all of this stuff so personal?
Change the subject? I am so tired of this subject
Whining, Crying, facts mean nothing. You served? good for you. that gives you a right to use that sacrifice those kids made any way you want to?

You want to know how I feel on this matter, start from the beginning
You want to talk to me like like man talks to another man, anytime, any day

"You Libs"

Most people define Liberal or Conservative based on someone's political views. Whackjobs?Definition: Anyone disagreeing with a whackjob on any issue.

Whining & Crying? You mean you? Well sweetheart, you're welcome to stop whining and crying any time you like.
I dealt in facts. You dodged them and tried changing the subject. Period. Lt's try direct questions and see if you keep dodging.
Do you claim the Iraq War didn't cost trillions?
Do you claim the Iraqis didn't refuse to spend their own money on rebuilding their country? That they didn't demand we continue spending our money and Bush caved?
Do you claim they didn't refuse to give us a shot right from the beginning at their oil contracts (from the rigs WE paid to rebuild) and gave them to China, our economic rival?
That their government has been deemed among the top 5 most corrupt in the world?
That they are not publicly aligning themselves with Iran and Syria?

Oops! Crap! Facts! Issues! Time for you to dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run...

Time for us to laugh when you do

some where in your attack I missed your facts
the Iraq war and its real cost will never be known. No-one took the time to take off the monies we were spending in Saudi and Kuwait in military bases that are now closed as well as the funding the UN was getting dealing with that mess. 1 trillion is probably close

The rest of that crap means nothing to me, it has no bearing on what we went to war forI refuse to be dragged into a debate that I could care less about Yet you jumped in and started debating...
and yes your (again, English speakers use "you're")no different than every whining liberal I have ever been around, I have never met a true conservative who took this stuff personal
Adults find a place to agree to dis agree Disagree is one word. And yes I have done this often. The difference is your concept of agreeing to disagree is calling someone else a whining liberal, then saying they're wrong and none of their points are valid...)
I found it with this a long time ago

So you come here claiming the Iraq war was a success. I dispute that and give me reasons why. You change the subject and then start whining. Then you are presented with facts showing that anything that might be defined as a "Success" in IRaq, has ended up in the opposite.
And as I predicted, you dodge the facts and now declare you will Cut & Run from them. Yeah. That was hard to predict.
Just like this is easily predicted: You will dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run from this line of questioning:

Why did we go to war in Iraq?
1. Were we told by Bush that we were under "Positive and imminent threat of WMD's from Saddam"?
2. Were we told "We knowexactly where the WMD's are. They are North and West of Takrit."
3. Did the U.N. Object when we said we wanted to invade? (So much for it being about our great respect for the U.N. then...)
4. Was it only AFTER the resolution to invade was passed and troops were underway, that we were told that it was now about our "love of the Iraqi people" (LOL!) and (UnConstitutional) desire to police the world and invade a country that had not first attacked us?

You may now do as predicted...
Really, this is just too easy.

 

[JRK]

"You Libs"

Most people define Liberal or Conservative based on someone's political views. Whackjobs?Definition: Anyone disagreeing with a whackjob on any issue.

Whining & Crying? You mean you? Well sweetheart, you're welcome to stop whining and crying any time you like.
I dealt in facts. You dodged them and tried changing the subject. Period. Lt's try direct questions and see if you keep dodging.
Do you claim the Iraq War didn't cost trillions?
Do you claim the Iraqis didn't refuse to spend their own money on rebuilding their country? That they didn't demand we continue spending our money and Bush caved?
Do you claim they didn't refuse to give us a shot right from the beginning at their oil contracts (from the rigs WE paid to rebuild) and gave them to China, our economic rival?
That their government has been deemed among the top 5 most corrupt in the world?
That they are not publicly aligning themselves with Iran and Syria?

Oops! Crap! Facts! Issues! Time for you to dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run...

Time for us to laugh when you do

some where in your attack I missed your facts
the Iraq war and its real cost will never be known. No-one took the time to take off the monies we were spending in Saudi and Kuwait in military bases that are now closed as well as the funding the UN was getting dealing with that mess. 1 trillion is probably close

The rest of that crap means nothing to me, it has no bearing on what we went to war forI refuse to be dragged into a debate that I could care less about Yet you jumped in and started debating...
and yes your (again, English speakers use "you're")no different than every whining liberal I have ever been around, I have never met a true conservative who took this stuff personal
Adults find a place to agree to dis agree Disagree is one word. And yes I have done this often. The difference is your concept of agreeing to disagree is calling someone else a whining liberal, then saying they're wrong and none of their points are valid...)
I found it with this a long time ago

So you come here claiming the Iraq war was a success. I dispute that and give me reasons why. You change the subject and then start whining. Then you are presented with facts showing that anything that might be defined as a "Success" in IRaq, has ended up in the opposite.
And as I predicted, you dodge the facts and now declare you will Cut & Run from them. Yeah. That was hard to predict.
Just like this is easily predicted: You will dodge, change the subject or Cut & Run from this line of questioning:

Why did we go to war in Iraq?
1. Were we told by Bush that we were under "Positive and imminent threat of WMD's from Saddam"?
2. Were we told "We knowexactly where the WMD's are. They are North and West of Takrit."
3. Did the U.N. Object when we said we wanted to invade? (So much for it being about our great respect for the U.N. then...)
4. Was it only AFTER the resolution to invade was passed and troops were underway, that we were told that it was now about our "love of the Iraqi people" (LOL!) and (UnConstitutional) desire to police the world and invade a country that had not first attacked us?

You may now do as predicted...
Really, this is just too easy.

whining?
This has over 2000 responses in this thread bud, you just jumped in
get to reading is all i can tell you
1) no, we were told by Hans Blix that Saddam had 6500 munitions, Anthrax and nerve gas after 10 years of him supposedly be ridding the world of his mess. this took place on 1-27-2003, 4 months after congress gave GWB the power to enforce these very resolutions
Dude it was not our place in life to fix this mess, it was Saddam's. And when Blix sated that in public after 10 years of BS he was not the only one who thought this was the right thing to do then and some even now
The UN was suppose to have prevented this, there more at fault here than any-one. We had attacked Iraq before 2003, had you forgot that? Saddam had the time and the place to do the right thing
Chew on this
notice the last one
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now you add that 3 days later Blix comes out and says what he said?
and your trying to convince of what? that all of this was GWB war?
Your not even on the radar
Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

 

[JRK]

I see the war crime lie has been brought back up

From the UN
1-27-2003
the event why we invaded
Update 27 January 2003
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.


The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

congress approves the use of force to enforce UN regs
It really is that simple
BTW there where WMDs found, this event how ever it was not what we were told was there, made it 100% legal
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

 

[JakeStarkey]

blah blah blah

WMDs as described by the admin were not found, the chemistry sets not withstanding that JRK believes are WMDs.

We had no legal jurisdiction to enforce UN resolutions.

End of story.

 

[JRK]

blah blah blah

WMDs as described by the admin were not found, the chemistry sets not withstanding that JRK believes are WMDs.

We had no legal jurisdiction to enforce UN resolutions.

End of story.

Jake you are 100% wrong
Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
On October 10, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, H.J. Res. 114/S.J. Res. 45. The final vote in the House was 296-133 for the resolution, and 77-23 in favor in the Senate. The joint resolution provides broad authorization for the President to wage unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq at his discretion. Although the resolution passed both houses by significant margins,
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1.) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2.) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

 

[JRK]

The munitions found by no means met the munitions the UN, CIA and many others said to exist, but the bottom line was they were all suppose to be gone
Saddam Hussein was dictated after attacking Kuwait to dis arm 100% as provided in the Un resolutions, he failed to do so
Jake your wrong and you know it

 

[georgephillip]

So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?

"The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: 'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.'[1][2]

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?

"The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: 'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.'[1][2]

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world court?
The world court?
are you kidding me?
What part of the US constitution do you not understand?
there has never been a more legal war
The world court has 0 jurisdiction and it is none of there damn business, and I do not recall any-one facing any charges from any court
I allege that you Liberals need to stop with the lying about these events and if your upset about it then Saddam and The UN is who you should be mad at

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Am missing something here?

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (also known as the Derivative Evidence Doctrine) is a rule in criminal law that makes evidence that was derived from an illegal search, arrest or interrogation inadmissible. In other words, the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted due to it coming from the illegal search and seizure (the “poisonous tree”). Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence.

Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine | Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer

With regard to Iraq, therefore, the outcome of the war is irrelevant (the outcome being the ‘fruit’). The war came about illegally, when the Bush Administration withheld facts and lied as to its intent that would have otherwise compelled Congress not to authorize the war.

American jurisprudence rejects the notion of ‘the ends justifies the means.’ A criminal enterprise can never be justified regardless the success of its outcome.

 

[Moonglow]

It was really worth a trillion dollars.

 

[georgephillip]

So your argument rests on war whores in the US Congress accepting bribes from defense contractors to "authorize" an illegal invasion that has murdered, maimed, displaced or incarcerated millions of innocent Iraqi civilians?

"The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: 'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.'[1][2]

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world court?
The world court?
are you kidding me?
What part of the US constitution do you not understand?
there has never been a more legal war
The world court has 0 jurisdiction and it is none of there damn business, and I do not recall any-one facing any charges from any court
I allege that you Liberals need to stop with the lying about these events and if your upset about it then Saddam and The UN is who you should be mad at

Wars of Aggression are always illegal and evil.

"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[54]

"Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following WWII, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council."

Maybe you conservatives should stop waging war with other peoples' money and blood?

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia