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

[JRK]

Colin Powell outlined the UN:

1) Saddam's refusal to follow UN inspections of his WMD program.

UN Inspectors, including Americans, stated that he was in substantial compliance.

2) Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel.

Saddam supported the families of suicide bomber, by giving them a grubstake, after the policy was to raze the homes of idiots. Was there any due process? Saddam was an assmonkey, but was it cause to go to war?

3) Saddam's human rights violations inside Iraq.

Saddam was a douchebag, but comes out a piker when we see the theocrats taking over. Did Saddam whip women for not covering their hair? Nah, he wanted a secular state, which is something that the right wing theocrates hate.

4) Saddam's violations of the No Fly Zone.

Perhaps, but it was a chump excuse to go Full Monty on them. Being douchbags against their own people isn't a reason to commit hundreds of thousands of troops.

Nothing about the dildoist society of Iraq justified what we spent in lives and treasure.

What did the Bush administration tell us it was going to cost?

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.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

compliance?
compliance?
Thats form the UN 1-27-2003
Update 27 January 2003

The admin missed the cost because of Al Qaeda being there in much stronger that we thought
Iraqis stopped fighting long long before we agreed to a complete turn over

 

[GoneBezerk]

So says the idiot that claimed ICBMs are going to be faded out as part of the nuclear TRIAD.

Curse, large font, and pretend all you wish; this remains one of the worst military mistakes in US history.

 

[JRK]

Curse, large font, and pretend all you wish; this remains one of the worst military mistakes in US history.

mam I have never cussed you or for that matter any-one
Large font? no-one will read the truth, they keep re peating the same bad information they were given
I hate Violence
Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
Saddam killed more than 2 million people According to the NY times
If you read the large font it should be clear to any-one Saddam was lying

War sux
violence sux
Saddam and Al Qaeda were the violent ones
Do you think our freedoms and safety comes without a price sometimes?
Sad at is it is, Saddam and Al Qaeda caused this mess, not the US, GWB, Bill Clinton, Dems, Repubs

 

[Peach]

Saddam was a secular MILITARY leader. No al Qaeda, no nukes, no WMD's. He was going down before Bush's war, and the US lost sight of terror because the boy's ego. A failure, par none.

Cheney's biggest campaign:

Cheney: Saddam working on nuclear weapons - CNN

Rice's pitch:

RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.


The cheerleaders can stay in denial, but the Iraq disaster remains the same.

 

[jillian]

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

Am missing something here?

1.destabilized middle east

2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists

3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.

4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.

5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.

seems you missed a few things.

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

 

[JRK]

Saddam was a secular MILITARY leader. No al Qaeda, no nukes, no WMD's. He was going down before Bush's war, and the US lost sight of terror because the boy's ego. A failure, par none.

Cheney's biggest campaign:

Cheney: Saddam working on nuclear weapons - CNN

Rice's pitch:

RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.


The cheerleaders can stay in denial, but the Iraq disaster remains the same.

This will take care of Al Qaeda, it has been confirmed they were there before we invaded by multiple sources
Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.
Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

The UN link I have provided shows there were no were near ready for stopping

And as far as WMDS?
I have to post this link every new face, i wish you people would do some DD on this, after all our troops lost lives dealing with this mess


Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the w

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Noe what intel had reported by a long shot, but
1) Al qaeda was there in 02 and through the war (It is why lasted so long)
2) Saddam had weapons, some found just prior to invasion, some after

Now your opinion is fine, but your info is not. Cheerleading the death of innocent victims of Al Qaeda and Saddam?
Cheer leading troops being killed and maimed for life?
That is sick mam, i am only telling the truth, I hate it as much as anyone, but I hate the lies as much

 

[Peach]

1.destabilized middle east

2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists

3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.

4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.

5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.

seems you missed a few things.

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

One day the rabid right wants US troops to risk their lives because of UN resolutions, the next day they mean nothing; the UN is "commie".

 

[JRK]

1.destabilized middle east

2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists

3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.

4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.

5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.

seems you missed a few things.

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

Blix knew he had messed up
He tried to back track
No matter how he spun it after 1-27-2003, that info still was there and was as accurate as an after. The 6500 munitions were there at one time

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
They were there running from Afgahn, the country was out of control, saddam was lying and had no intent of doing the right thing

with respect, I dis agree

 

[jillian]

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

Blix knew he had messed up
He tried to back track
No matter how he spun it after 1-27-2003, that info still was there and was as accurate as an after. The 6500 munitions were there at one time

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
They were there running from Afgahn, the country was out of control, saddam was lying and had no intent of doing the right thing

with respect, I dis agree

i don't think blix messed up.

and, ask yourself, even if those weapons were still in iraq... was it worth the cost in lives and treasure to go to Baghdad.

saddam was talking smack... he had a big mouth and was an animal... but truth is, he was "our" animal..... until he wasn't.

i appreciate your responses, though. we can agree to disagree.

 

[jillian]

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

One day the rabid right wants US troops to risk their lives because of UN resolutions, the next day they mean nothing; the UN is "commie".

i do see a bit of inconsistency there.

 

[Peach]

1) removing a person who was responsible for the murder of 2 million people made the region more un stable? A "man" who provided funds for a number of terrorist organisations?
Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Iraqi people voted those people into power. Of course you have proof that there who U say they are
3) Iran? under control from Iraq? okay
4) Iraq caused people to loan other people money they could not pay back? explain that one to us. BHO added more money to our debt X 5 in 3 years than Iraq cost us in the entire event
5) Taxes? we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007, the last GOP budget. Job loss and adding 1 trillion dollars to our budget from 2007 -2010 is why we have such a huge deficit along with millions of jobs lost, not the war in Iraq

You dis agree? thats your right
What would you have done with the Al Qaeda that was setting up base there in 2002?

WE provide funds for terrorists by giving money to pals ... which we have done way back since the PA was run by Arafat...

the largest funders of terrorism in the mid-east are the saudis, whom we also shove money at... and the iranis... it was never Iraq.

the only reason we went into iraq was because the PNAC which overran the bush admin wanted to... they had pressured Pres. Clinton to "reshape the middle east" going back to 1998. they used 9/11 as a fortuitous excuse to do what they wanted to.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

iraq had nothing, nada, nil to do with 9/11... AQ was in pakistan and afghanistan... saddam had zero to do with fundie nutbars... he hated them. and the part of Iraq in which AQ was training was the northern territories which weren't under Saddam's control.

we also know that the inspectors were getting access and any inspection problems had been addressed. i'd recommend you take a look at Hans Blix' Final Report. It makes for interesting reading:

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

i would have supported limited incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11... there wasn't any reason to go into Iraq.

Blix knew he had messed up
He tried to back track
No matter how he spun it after 1-27-2003, that info still was there and was as accurate as an after. The 6500 munitions were there at one time

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded
They were there running from Afgahn, the country was out of control, saddam was lying and had no intent of doing the right thing

with respect, I dis agree

They went to Pakistan. Now, I agree he was a monster, and wish the US could have aided his downfall with loss of our troops' lives & the lives of those from other nations, including Iraq. Note also, a war being a failure in no way reflects on the troops; I support Vet benefits, 100%. The fault lies only with those who ordered them into combat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1.destabilized middle east

Uh, I thought your little tin god said the Arab Spring was a GOOD THING?

2. gave power to islamic fundamentalists

See above.

3. removed the only thing keeping iran under control.

If Iraq was the feeble country that you leftists claim, how could they keep Iran in check?

Also, isn't it nuclear, rather than conventional arms that are of concern from Iran? How exactly was Saddam influencing that? (I'll wait while you go to Common Dreams to find out what you think about this!)

4. unnecessary expenditure of funds that helped lead to our economic problems.

ROFL

You've said some stupid things - Okay, most of what you post is stupid, but this is beyond the pale....

No dummy, the economic collapse was driven by mortgage backed securities that collapsed when the housing bubble burst. Bush spending at half the rate your Messiah® does had virtually nothing to do with it.

5. running of unnecessary war of choice while cutting taxes during wartime for the only time in recorded history... also lead to our economic problems giving china greater hold over us b/c it holds so much of our debt.

seems you missed a few things.

Seems you're messing a few IQ points....

 

[BlindBoo]

Dumbfuck....Colin Powell outlined our reasons for why Saddam needed to be removed from power.

The UN ignored their own resolutions against him, because scum like China, Russia and some Euro trash were making money under the table through the Oil for Food scam. Even the leader of the UN had his son involved in stealing money from the program.

To continually lie about what Colin Powell said was our US position shows you're nothing but a liberal that will never accept the truth.

Democraps authorized Bush to invade Iraq because they saw the same intel photos Powell and others saw where Saddam was moving/burying stuff around Iraq during the IAEA inspections. If a felon is moving and burying stuff in his backyard...the police typically see that as some criminal activity and get a warrant to see what he is doing.

The same can be said about Saddam on an international level...but most likely he got his WMD to Syria with the help of Russia just in time before the invasion so that dumbfucks like you can claim Bush lied.

Oh, are you doing to deny Saddam was funding suicide bombers attacking "the Jews," killing/torturing his own people, and violating the guidelines laid out from the Gulf War ceasefire regarding the No Fly Zone and WMD program? Come on dumbfuck.....deny it.

Colin Powell outlined the UN:

1) Saddam's refusal to follow UN inspections of his WMD program.
2) Saddam's support for suicide bombers attacking Israel.
3) Saddam's human rights violations inside Iraq.
4) Saddam's violations of the No Fly Zone.

So we went into Iraq based on based on those reasons in order to remove Saddam from power. Saddam is dead and Iraq is now in compliance with all of the above.

1. SCR 1441 which the US agreed too was still in effect and proceeding to verify that there were no new WMD in Iraq.

2. The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's support for militants in regional conflicts like the one in Palestine as a reason that the President could decide on.

3. The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's alleged human rights violations as a reason that the President could decide on.

2. The Joint resolution authorizing military action did not include Saddam's disregarding the No-Fly-Zone as a reason that the President could decide on.

Nope none of the above fufill the requirements laid out in the Joint Resolution for the use of military force. The invasdion and occupation was not only a failure but a huge blunder.

See SCR 1441

I never mentioned Colin Powel. You did.

They should have all resigned in disgrace.

Nah they're on a ship steaming around the Indian Ocean.

Do you understand that Iraq supports the Palestinians in their regional conflict with Israel. alaong with all other Arab nations Iraq contribute to the Palestinian fund which pays death benefits to Palestinians who are killed. They do not exclude families of suicide bombers from this fund and those families make up a small % of those who recieve the money.

None of those things were reasons the president could decide to use military force on in the Joint resolution passed by Congress.

Major failure Buzzurkur, major.

 

[BlindBoo]

The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.

Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too.

These same left-wing nuts picked Joe Lieberman for VP all the time knowing he would ditch the Democrap party later....because they are just that smart in their own minds.

"There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.

"Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries.

"When Iraq came off that list in 1982, however, some $48 million of items such as data privacy devices, voice scramblers, communication and navigation equipment, electronic components, image intensifiers and pistols (to protect Saddam) were approved for sale during 1985-90.

"But it was through the purchase of $1.5 billion of American "dual-use items," having, sometimes arguably, both military and civilian functions, that Iraq obtained the bulk of it weapons of mass destruction in the late 80s. 'Duel-use items' are controlled and licensed by the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act of 1979. This is where the real damage was done."

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?

Typical pseudo-con. When history doesn't agree with your talking points, change history. Iraq was a Soviets client state. One of the reason Raygun had to get involved was becasue the Soviets boycotted Iraq after it invaded Iran. Raygun helped supply them with Russian Spare parts.

President Bush(41) could have told Saddam that we would defend the Kingdom of Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them(we didn't), but he didn't. His embassador told him we had no opinion on Arab/Arab violence.

 

[georgephillip]

"There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.

"Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries.

"When Iraq came off that list in 1982, however, some $48 million of items such as data privacy devices, voice scramblers, communication and navigation equipment, electronic components, image intensifiers and pistols (to protect Saddam) were approved for sale during 1985-90.

"But it was through the purchase of $1.5 billion of American "dual-use items," having, sometimes arguably, both military and civilian functions, that Iraq obtained the bulk of it weapons of mass destruction in the late 80s. 'Duel-use items' are controlled and licensed by the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act of 1979. This is where the real damage was done."

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?

Why do you people defend those who profit from wars they are too cowardly to fight in?
Why do you people defend thiodiglycol?
Why do you people defend the murder, maiming, incarceration and displacement of millions of Iraqis at the hands of your own government since March of 2003?
Because Saddam was evil?
Clean your own stye first, and then name the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet.

 

[georgephillip]

The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.

Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too.

These same left-wing nuts picked Joe Lieberman for VP all the time knowing he would ditch the Democrap party later....because they are just that smart in their own minds.

"There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.

"Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries.

"When Iraq came off that list in 1982, however, some $48 million of items such as data privacy devices, voice scramblers, communication and navigation equipment, electronic components, image intensifiers and pistols (to protect Saddam) were approved for sale during 1985-90.

"But it was through the purchase of $1.5 billion of American "dual-use items," having, sometimes arguably, both military and civilian functions, that Iraq obtained the bulk of it weapons of mass destruction in the late 80s. 'Duel-use items' are controlled and licensed by the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act of 1979. This is where the real damage was done."

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?

You're too fucking stupid to be human.

Do you think Reagan could find Halabja on a map? (He couldn't find WWII)
Do you think he might have owned some Alcolac stock?

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

"Leaked portions of Iraq's 'Full, Final and Complete' disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips.

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This country would be much more free if chicken shit like you were born dead.

 

[JRK]

The idiot socialist is a foreigner that gets a boner coming here continually try to claim Reagan made Saddam a monster since we supported Saddam against Iran and helped Saddam keep the Soviets out of Iraq.

Reagan was supposed to look into a crystal ball and see Saddam would later invade Kuwait over debts he owed while also threatening the Saudis oil supply too.

These same left-wing nuts picked Joe Lieberman for VP all the time knowing he would ditch the Democrap party later....because they are just that smart in their own minds.

What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?

You're too fucking stupid to be human.

Do you think Reagan could find Halabja on a map? (He couldn't find WWII)
Do you think he might have owned some Alcolac stock?

"The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

"Leaked portions of Iraq's 'Full, Final and Complete' disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips.

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This country would be much more free if chicken shit like you were born dead.

That is sick
Dis agreeing with your fellow American does not mean you should conduct your self as such
RR had NOTHING to do with Kuwait
RR made no choices to kill, torture, rape millions
To put an entire region in turmoil
The US had 5,000 troops in Saudi, an event that gets lost in 9-11
The very reason OBL stated he masterminded 9-11. Why were they there?
To protect Saudi from Saddam
Basically, the very presence in Saudi Arabia of the 5,000 U.S. soldiers and fliers who are there to help protect them from Iraq, Iran and Saudi radicals.

For the Saudi royal family, American troops are both savior and embarrassment. Many in the fundamentalist Muslim population of that sprawling, oil-rich kingdom consider the presence of "foreign infidels" on sacred Saudi soil an insult to Islam. And they blame the Saudi royals, whom they accuse of corruption and immorality, for having brought the infidels in to begin with.

The U.S. troops keep an eagle eye on Iraq and Iran through daily surveillance flights, thus protecting both Saudi Arabia and our vital oil interests. The nervous Saudi rulers foot the bill, but they insist the troops not only keep their heads low, but stick them in the sand. There's little Saudi acknowledgment of the U.S. military presence sometimes even denial. American troops are urged to stay close to barracks, and they're forbidden to fly the American flag, even at their base.

Our Saudi Friends Let U.s. Troops Down . . . - New York Daily News

Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times

 

[Mac1958]

Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times

"...and getting rid of him was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran. YES! INDEED! IT WAS WORTH IT."

Come on, JRK, sign off on the above paragraph. Say it. Own it. Love it. It belongs to you. You have to agree with the above if you're going to continue to defend this travesty.

Well?

.

 

[JRK]

"There were few if any reservations evident in the range of weapons which President Ronald Reagan, and his successor George W. H. Bush were willing to sell Saddam Hussein.

"Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, the foreign sale of munitions and other defense equipment and technology are controlled by the Department of State. During the 1980s, such items could not be sold or diverted to Communist states, nor to those on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting countries.

"When Iraq came off that list in 1982, however, some $48 million of items such as data privacy devices, voice scramblers, communication and navigation equipment, electronic components, image intensifiers and pistols (to protect Saddam) were approved for sale during 1985-90.

"But it was through the purchase of $1.5 billion of American "dual-use items," having, sometimes arguably, both military and civilian functions, that Iraq obtained the bulk of it weapons of mass destruction in the late 80s. 'Duel-use items' are controlled and licensed by the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act of 1979. This is where the real damage was done."

Who Armed Iraq? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

What does the events of the 80s have to do with Kuwait?
Saddams surrender?
Ignoring terms of surrender (survival)
9-11
Al Qaeda taking up arms in Iraq prior to invasion?
550 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq?
Harboring as well financing numerous terrorist organizations
torture
rape
murder (NY times claims 2 million)

Why do you people defends this maniac so much?

Why do you people defend those who profit from wars they are too cowardly to fight in?
Why do you people defend thiodiglycol?
Why do you people defend the murder, maiming, incarceration and displacement of millions of Iraqis at the hands of your own government since March of 2003?
Because Saddam was evil?
Clean your own stye first, and then name the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet.

The murdering, maiming went n long before 3/2003
Saddam made choices that the world could no longer tolerate
There were 34 countries that invaded Iraq

The greatest purveyor of violence? Where do I start?
Hitler?
Saddam?

That would be 2 at the top of the list. they both killed millions of people for no other reason that they were people

 

[Mac1958]

Saddam was a mad man that RR had nothing to do with his mental state, his murder of over 2 million according to the NY times

"...and getting rid of him was worth the lives of thousands of American troops, thousands of American troops maimed for life, thousands of American troops emotionally/mentally shattered forever, thousands of young American military families destroyed, thousands of young American children who will never see their brave Dad again, hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, not to mention the clear possibility that all of our so-called fucking nation-building will ultimately fail anyway, when we finally are out of there and the bad guys return, and the fact that Saddam's death tipped the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran. YES! INDEED! IT WAS WORTH IT."

Come on, JRK, sign off on the above paragraph. Say it. Own it. Love it. It belongs to you. You have to agree with the above if you're going to continue to defend this travesty.

Well?

.

Hey JRK, still waiting. Go ahead, should be the easiest thing you do all day. No spinning or diversion required. "Yes".

Just say, "yes Mac, all of the above was worth it to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam."

Easy as pie.


.