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

[JakeStarkey]

Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003.

The WMD program that Saddam never came clean about was one reason why we invaded Iraq, human rights violations is another, and supporting terrorists attacking Israel is another. In addition violating terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and UN resolutions sealed his fate AFTER 9/11.

Before 9/11 the US was allowing the IAEA and Saddam to do their tap dance for years, but once islamic terrorists killed around 3,000 inside the US on 9/11, the game changed. The US was no longer going to allow Saddam to support terrorists and possibly pass WMD to terrorists, but of course dumbfucks like you would rather take a chance he wouldn't do it.

Scott Ritter publicly and correctly told the world Iraq had no WMD, that we had adequate monitoring capability that we would know if Iraq restarted its WMD development.

Dumbfucks like you would rather listen to liars like Bush and Cheney, and don't even concern yourselves with the cost, 1 trillion to fight the war, 4500 americans killed, 30,000 wounded, and 2 trillion in future expenses to cover the wounded.

And for what?

Epic Fail!

This is what Ritter said on PBS:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program

Then he wrote his book Endgame, evolved, and found that dissing Bush sold a lot more books.

A neo-con revisionist narrative: dismissed.

 

[Too Tall]

So no US military women were killed in Iraq? Oh, but nice try with the "Daddy" comment.

The troops that died in Iraq is never a good thing, but the number is tiny compared to other wars.

The majority of the dead troops are because of mistakes made in the post-war efforts when we blocked Baath party members from important roles in the new Iraq. That caused the insurgents and terrorists to turn the country into a mess for awhile until we changed our course with the Sunni people.

So the mistakes made after we took control of the country don't support your false premise that Saddam shouldn't be removed from power for various reasons. You wouldn't have a pot to pee in if we didn't screw up the internal politics inside Iraq with the Baath party.

.

GoneBezerk, looks to me like you'll be willing to agree to something which JRK has chosen to avoid. Please let me know if you agree with the following:

The benefits of the Iraq War have been worth the following:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

I'm asking a serious, sincere, reasonable question. Name-calling and personal insults are not necessary, nor is diversion.

All of the above are facts. It was worth it, yes or no?


.

Don't see an answer to my very direct question there, so I'll try again.

Worth it, yes or no?

.

Not only yes, but hell yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Absolutely not. The American people rejected Too Tall's conclusion four years ago. He just refuses to understand.

 

[Too Tall]

Scott Ritter publicly and correctly told the world Iraq had no WMD, that we had adequate monitoring capability that we would know if Iraq restarted its WMD development.

Dumbfucks like you would rather listen to liars like Bush and Cheney, and don't even concern yourselves with the cost, 1 trillion to fight the war, 4500 americans killed, 30,000 wounded, and 2 trillion in future expenses to cover the wounded.

And for what?

Epic Fail!

This is what Ritter said on PBS:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program

Then he wrote his book Endgame, evolved, and found that dissing Bush sold a lot more books.

A neo-con revisionist narrative: dismissed.

Nope, a direct quote made by Scott Ritter on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. Then On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Then this great American (in your demented opinion) said this: On December 20th, 2005, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Tarrytown Music Hall in Tarrytown, NY, Ritter said furthermore that he would "prefer to be an Iraqi under Saddam than an Iraqi under a brutal American occupation."

I seldom say things like this, but fuck Ritter and the horse he rode in on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is what Ritter said on PBS:


Then he wrote his book Endgame, evolved, and found that dissing Bush sold a lot more books.

A neo-con revisionist narrative: dismissed.

Nope, a direct quote made by Scott Ritter on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. Then On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Then this great American (in your demented opinion) said this: On December 20th, 2005, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Tarrytown Music Hall in Tarrytown, NY, Ritter said furthermore that he would "prefer to be an Iraqi under Saddam than an Iraqi under a brutal American occupation."

Give us the source and links, so we can see who is massaging your version, for it is certainly a version and a wrong one. I would like to see the Ritter quote in context. You can do that, won't you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, because it was mentioned in the campaign, that means the entire election was a referendum on the war? You can't be that stupid. If you want a campaign that was a referendum on the war, take a look at 2004. 2008 was primarily about the economy and the electorate's general interest in a change of party (even so, had McCain not run one of the worst campaigns in history...).

If that was true, then why did every pro-war candidate but 2, lose their job in the election?

 

[finebead]

Uh, don't claim zero WMD were found in Iraq. You need to tell the idiot candyass some WMD were found in Iraq post 2003.

The WMD program that Saddam never came clean about was one reason why we invaded Iraq, human rights violations is another, and supporting terrorists attacking Israel is another. In addition violating terms of the Gulf War ceasefire and UN resolutions sealed his fate AFTER 9/11.

Before 9/11 the US was allowing the IAEA and Saddam to do their tap dance for years, but once islamic terrorists killed around 3,000 inside the US on 9/11, the game changed. The US was no longer going to allow Saddam to support terrorists and possibly pass WMD to terrorists, but of course dumbfucks like you would rather take a chance he wouldn't do it.

Scott Ritter publicly and correctly told the world Iraq had no WMD, that we had adequate monitoring capability that we would know if Iraq restarted its WMD development.

Dumbfucks like you would rather listen to liars like Bush and Cheney, and don't even concern yourselves with the cost, 1 trillion to fight the war, 4500 americans killed, 30,000 wounded, and 2 trillion in future expenses to cover the wounded.

And for what?

Epic Fail!

This is what Ritter said on PBS:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program

Then he wrote his book Endgame, evolved, and found that dissing Bush sold a lot more books.

Ritter always said we had to continue to monitor Iraq, but he also clearly said they did not possess a WMD program in 2002, certainly not one that justified invading.

Despite identifying himself as a Republican and having voted for George W. Bush in 2000,[11] by 2002 Ritter had become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's claims that Iraq possessed significant WMD stocks or manufacturing capabilities, the primary rationale given for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[12]

Scott Ritter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, you could have believed Bush / Cheney etc. in which case you would have been wrong. Ritter was correct.

 

[Unkotare]

Iraq, even under Saddam represented the only hard power check Iran recognized, and feared.

Not in the years between Gulf Wars I & II.

 

[Unkotare]

2008 was a referendum on Iraq, and don't ever think differently.

It most certainly was not, you dishonest lefty revisionist. Maybe you were stoned all that time, but 2008 was about the economy, and to a lesser extent a general feeling that people were in the mood for a new flavor after 8 years of a Republican president. If any election was 'about' Iraq it was 2004.

2004 was a vote on the success of the invasion, before the insurgency kicked out asses for three years. 2008 was about a president whose approval rate, because of the war, was hovering around 30%. The recession pushed the final knife into the corpse of neo-con Republicanism. It and its followers are outside and will remain there. Romney will never engage in such stupidity.

You have a short memory, kid. By the 2004 election the insurgency was in full effect, Abu Ghraib had taken place, the failure to find WMDs was a hot issue, a video showing contractor Nicholas Berg being beheaded by insurgents had made the rounds; and second guessing, media attack, and democrats in congress running from their own positions and declaring failure was all over the news.

By the 2008 election the surge had been vindicated as successful and Iraq was moving toward greater stability.

The 2008 election was about the economy, McCain's horrible campaign, and a full-on media assault on Palin with one hand while fondling obama's sack with the other.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, because it was mentioned in the campaign, that means the entire election was a referendum on the war? You can't be that stupid. If you want a campaign that was a referendum on the war, take a look at 2004. 2008 was primarily about the economy and the electorate's general interest in a change of party (even so, had McCain not run one of the worst campaigns in history...).

If that was true, then why did every pro-war candidate but 2, lose their job in the election?

Because most of them were democrats in a year when the Republicans took a beating. Of course, the democrats immediately proved their corruption and arrogance and so took a worse beating in the 2010 midterms.

 

[finebead]

It most certainly was not, you dishonest lefty revisionist. Maybe you were stoned all that time, but 2008 was about the economy, and to a lesser extent a general feeling that people were in the mood for a new flavor after 8 years of a Republican president. If any election was 'about' Iraq it was 2004.

2004 was a vote on the success of the invasion, before the insurgency kicked out asses for three years. 2008 was about a president whose approval rate, because of the war, was hovering around 30%. The recession pushed the final knife into the corpse of neo-con Republicanism. It and its followers are outside and will remain there. Romney will never engage in such stupidity.

You have a short memory, kid. By the 2004 election the insurgency was in full effect, Abu Ghraib had taken place, the failure to find WMDs was a hot issue, a video showing contractor Nicholas Berg being beheaded by insurgents had made the rounds; and second guessing, media attack, and democrats in congress running from their own positions and declaring failure was all over the news.

By the 2008 election the surge had been vindicated as successful and Iraq was moving toward greater stability.

The 2008 election was about the economy, McCain's horrible campaign, and a full-on media assault on Palin with one hand while fondling obama's sack with the other.

I already showed you above the quote, McCain wanted to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. (page 210, post 3138) You have failed to respond with anything except your "opinion".

So, here we go again, McCain saying he'd be fine staying in Iraq for 100 years. The american people didn't want that, and didn't trust the repubs to execute properly, so they voted against McCain.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk&feature=related]McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me" - YouTube[/ame]

The Iraq war was a central issue in the 2008 election because the american people wanted it over with. Obama promised to get combat troops out, McCain didn't. McCain lost.

Of course the economic collapse presided over by Bush with the housing bubble and failure to regulate the mortgage market and banking system angered people, but Iraq was also a big issue, and I have repeatedly shown it, which is more than you can say, you have shown NOTHING.

 

[Unkotare]

2004 was a vote on the success of the invasion, before the insurgency kicked out asses for three years. 2008 was about a president whose approval rate, because of the war, was hovering around 30%. The recession pushed the final knife into the corpse of neo-con Republicanism. It and its followers are outside and will remain there. Romney will never engage in such stupidity.

You have a short memory, kid. By the 2004 election the insurgency was in full effect, Abu Ghraib had taken place, the failure to find WMDs was a hot issue, a video showing contractor Nicholas Berg being beheaded by insurgents had made the rounds; and second guessing, media attack, and democrats in congress running from their own positions and declaring failure was all over the news.

By the 2008 election the surge had been vindicated as successful and Iraq was moving toward greater stability.

The 2008 election was about the economy, McCain's horrible campaign, and a full-on media assault on Palin with one hand while fondling obama's sack with the other.

I already showed you above the quote, McCain wanted to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. (page 210, post 3138) You have failed to respond with anything except your "opinion".

All those facts above are not "opinion," kid. Try to pay attention.

 

[finebead]

You have a short memory, kid. By the 2004 election the insurgency was in full effect, Abu Ghraib had taken place, the failure to find WMDs was a hot issue, a video showing contractor Nicholas Berg being beheaded by insurgents had made the rounds; and second guessing, media attack, and democrats in congress running from their own positions and declaring failure was all over the news.

By the 2008 election the surge had been vindicated as successful and Iraq was moving toward greater stability.

The 2008 election was about the economy, McCain's horrible campaign, and a full-on media assault on Palin with one hand while fondling obama's sack with the other.

I already showed you above the quote, McCain wanted to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. (page 210, post 3138) You have failed to respond with anything except your "opinion".

All those facts above are not "opinion," kid. Try to pay attention.

Prove it with links to support your case, like I have. You got NOTHING punk.

 

[Unkotare]

I already showed you above the quote, McCain wanted to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. (page 210, post 3138) You have failed to respond with anything except your "opinion".

All those facts above are not "opinion," kid. Try to pay attention.

Prove it with links to support your case, like I have. You got NOTHING punk.

Are you kidding? You don't remember 2004?! How old are you, 8?


While you are waiting for your mommy to give you the answer to that one, consider that part of the reason McCain lost is that he failed to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. The economy took that out of his hands.

 

[finebead]

All those facts above are not "opinion," kid. Try to pay attention.

Prove it with links to support your case, like I have. You got NOTHING punk.

Are you kidding? You don't remember 2004?! How old are you, 8?


While you are waiting for your mommy to give you the answer to that one, consider that part of the reason McCain lost is that he failed to make the 2008 election a referendum on the war in Iraq. The economy took that out of his hands.

I have not made one statement about the 2004 election, please try to keep up with what we are talking about.

I have shown that the McCain campaign had the referendum on Iraq as a major initiative in the 2008 election. They did not fail to make it a referendum on Iraq, they kept it front and center. The people didn't like McCain's ideas on Iraq ("I'm ok if we stay in Iraq 100 years").

You contended that Iraq was not a major issue in the 2008 election, I contend it was a major issue in the 08 election, and I have proven it was a major issue in 08 with my posts. You have failed to support your position, because you cannot, because you are wrong.

This is another synopsis of the major issues in the 2008 presidential election:

Issues
[edit]Iraq
The unpopular war in Iraq was a key issue during the campaign before the economic crisis. John McCain supported the war while Barack Obama opposed it. (Obama's early and strong opposition to the war helped him stand out against the other Democratic candidates during the primaries, as well as stand out to a war-weary electorate during the general campaign). Though McCain meant it as a peacetime presence like the United States maintained in Germany and Japan after World War II,[94] his statement that the United States could be in Iraq for as much as the next 50 to 100 years would prove costly. Obama used it against him as part of his strategy to tie him to the unpopular President Bush.

John McCain's support for the troop 'surge' employed by General David Petraeus, which was one of several factors credited with improving the security situation in Iraq, may have boosted McCain's stance on the issue in voters' minds. McCain (who supported the invasion) argued that his support for the successful surge showed his superior judgment. However, Obama was quick to remind voters that there would have been no need for a "surge" had there been no war at all, thus questioning McCain's judgment.

United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

Not only can't you remember 2004, you can't remember 2008?! Ok, so you are...what, 4 years old?


NPR: 2008 Election Issues: Economy


Can Barack Obama really make this election a referendum on the economy? | Business | TIME.com

Economy a deciding factor in 2008 election - JSOnline

 

[Unkotare]

Americans Prioritize the Economy Over Terrorism

 

[Unkotare]

Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.

 

[finebead]

Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.

OK punk I'll defeat you with YOUR SOURCE.

On page 209 of this thread, I said:

The screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election, as it should have.

On page 209 of this thread you said:

The 2008 was absolutely NOT a referendum on the Iraq War. Don't try to make shit up just to promote your own POV.

Now in YOUR source just above, from NPR, we have:

Feb. 4, 2008 -- Last fall, as the subprime housing crisis intensified, the economy replaced the war in Iraq as the top concern for Americans.

It is CLEAR from your source, as well as every one that I have cited, that the situation was EXACTLY as I originally stated, that the screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election.

Geez, after Bush presided over economic collapse, the war in Iraq fell from 1 to 2 in importance. It was still a major issue in the election, and I have been right all along. Even per your source.

 

[Unkotare]

Just FYI kid, wiki is NOT a legitimate source.

OK punk I'll defeat you with YOUR SOURCE.

On page 209 of this thread, I said:

The screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election, as it should have.

On page 209 of this thread you said:

The 2008 was absolutely NOT a referendum on the Iraq War. Don't try to make shit up just to promote your own POV.

Now in YOUR source just above, from NPR, we have:

Feb. 4, 2008 -- Last fall, as the subprime housing crisis intensified, the economy replaced the war in Iraq as the top concern for Americans.

It is CLEAR from your source, as well as every one that I have cited, that the situation was EXACTLY as I originally stated, that the screw up of the Iraq war and the economic collapse of 2008 cost the repubs the election.

Geez, after Bush presided over economic collapse, the war in Iraq fell from 1 to 2 in importance. It was still a major issue in the election, and I have been right all along. Even per your source.

You need to learn how to read not just quote, kid. Wiki can't cure your stupidity, junior.