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

[georgephillip]

While conservatives are always ready to kill children for money.

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age.

"We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931–6.)"

MMS: Error

How many children would you kill for $510,000,000 in profit?

And how is that Clinton's fault?
and what does 510 million dollars have to do with Saddam's behavior?
t any time Saddam could have done the right thing ]
On a side note, starving anyone is beyond a place I think is acceptable, i also find it more tragic when it is spun into something that its intent is political
this country with tax payer dollars has feed, clothed and cared for millions over the years. Get your head out of your ass and stop drinking the kool-aid

Maybe you should stop shilling for war criminals.

"1992

"Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world.

"Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.2

1995

"Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world.

"He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000.

"Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously.

"Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.3 Halliburton's overseas operations go from 51% to 68% of its revenue.

"According to the Center for Public Integrity,4 under Cheney's leadership the company also receives $1.5 billion worth of assistance from government-sponsored agencies such as OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Export-Import Bank, a huge increase compared to the $100 million that the company had received in federal loans and guarantees in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival.

"Years later, during the 2000 campaign in a broadcasted vice presidential candidates' debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that 'the government has absolutely nothing to do' with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.5

"Halliburton pleads guilty to criminal charges of violating a U.S. ban on exports to Libya by selling Col. Qaddafi six pulse neutron generators, devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.6

"Halliburton pays a $3.8 million penalty to settle alleged violations of the U.S. trade ban."

Halliburton Watch

 

[bripat9643]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

Do libs ever tire of making up phony statistics?

 

[JRK]

While conservatives are always ready to kill children for money.

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age.

"We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931–6.)"

MMS: Error

How many children would you kill for $510,000,000 in profit?

And how is that Clinton's fault?
and what does 510 million dollars have to do with Saddam's behavior?
t any time Saddam could have done the right thing ]
On a side note, starving anyone is beyond a place I think is acceptable, i also find it more tragic when it is spun into something that its intent is political
this country with tax payer dollars has feed, clothed and cared for millions over the years. Get your head out of your ass and stop drinking the kool-aid

Maybe you should stop shilling for war criminals.

"1992

"Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root is paid $9 million by the Pentagon (under Cheney's direction as Secretary of Defense) to produce a classified report detailing how private companies (like itself) could provide logistical support for American troops in potential war zones around the world.

"Shortly after this report, the Pentagon awards Brown & Root a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The General Accounting Office estimates that through this contract, Brown & Root makes overall $2.2 billion in revenue in the Balkans.2

1995

"Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services companies in the world.

"He will be chairman of the company from 1996 to October 1998 and from February to August 2000.

"Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors. The company garners $2.3 billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it earned from the government previously.

"Most of the contracts are granted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.3 Halliburton's overseas operations go from 51% to 68% of its revenue.

"According to the Center for Public Integrity,4 under Cheney's leadership the company also receives $1.5 billion worth of assistance from government-sponsored agencies such as OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Export-Import Bank, a huge increase compared to the $100 million that the company had received in federal loans and guarantees in the five years prior to Cheney's arrival.

"Years later, during the 2000 campaign in a broadcasted vice presidential candidates' debate with Joe Lieberman, Cheney asserts that 'the government has absolutely nothing to do' with his financial success as chairman of Halliburton Co.5

"Halliburton pleads guilty to criminal charges of violating a U.S. ban on exports to Libya by selling Col. Qaddafi six pulse neutron generators, devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons.6

"Halliburton pays a $3.8 million penalty to settle alleged violations of the U.S. trade ban."

Halliburton Watch

Looks like Cheney did a good job as the Chairman
whats your feeling on giving wealth away?
I mean at least Halliburton earned theres
GM just, well they did nothing
and do not was tee your breath with there paying us back

 

[JRK]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

Do libs ever tire of making up phony statistics?

Thats a sad thing to lie that bad
1) terrorist killed Iraqi civilians
2) We killed the terrorist

US drones killed 957 Pakistani civilians in 2010 | NWO Observer

 

[georgephillip]

Do you mean terrorists like that "stressed-out Marine in a Fallujah mosque?"

"But even as the killing of a single Iraqi, purported to be an insurgent, in a Fallujah mosque dominated almost a week of U.S. media coverage, the claim in the report in the respected British medical journal Lancet that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as 98,000 rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data — the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths.

"The Economist recently provided its own, more conservative estimate: 40,000 civilians dead.

"A significantly lower total is reported by the organization Iraq Bodycount, which has tabulated news reports that show a total of around 15,000 civilian casualties since the war began.

"Even if that lower total was accurate, it suggests that Iraq has suffered at least five times the impact of 9/11 — and the fact that its population is one tenth that of the U.S. would magnify the impact to more like 50 times that of 9/11."

Iraq Civilian Casualties? Who Knew? - TIME

 

[JRK]

Do you mean terrorists like that "stressed-out Marine in a Fallujah mosque?"

"But even as the killing of a single Iraqi, purported to be an insurgent, in a Fallujah mosque dominated almost a week of U.S. media coverage, the claim in the report in the respected British medical journal Lancet that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as 98,000 rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data — the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths.

"The Economist recently provided its own, more conservative estimate: 40,000 civilians dead.

"A significantly lower total is reported by the organization Iraq Bodycount, which has tabulated news reports that show a total of around 15,000 civilian casualties since the war began.

"Even if that lower total was accurate, it suggests that Iraq has suffered at least five times the impact of 9/11 — and the fact that its population is one tenth that of the U.S. would magnify the impact to more like 50 times that of 9/11."

Iraq Civilian Casualties? Who Knew? - TIME

To start with if you have no terrorist you would have no casualties
Saddam does the right thing
same
and
the coalition had little to do with those casualties
They killed those who where creating those casualties
Tell a lie enough it becomes fact

Now you cannot lie
the war in Iraq is over for us
we did what we said we would do
The casualties continue as a country is re born and the terrorist cannot stand it

 

[georgephillip]

Define "terrorism"

According to army manuals and the US Code, terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other (think economic) aims.

By that definition, the Marine in the mosque and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq qualify as acts of terror.

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Am missing something here?

1 is done

2 not quite yet

3 only the future will tell.

So in reality you are 1 for 3.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing
There are no winners in any war, but the goals that where set where accomplished

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

WOW! rewrite history much??

Inspectors were in iraq on the ground doing their jobs. W decided to go against the UN and told the inspectors to leave as he invaded a country claiming that they violated a UN resolution, which should be a call made by the UN, even as W went against the UN to invade.


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

 

[JRK]

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

Am missing something here?

1 is done

2 not quite yet

3 only the future will tell.

So in reality you are 1 for 3.

3 is done also

After an invasion led by American and British forces, the Ba'ath Party was removed from power and Iraq came under a military occupation by a multinational coalition. Sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government in June 2004. A new constitution was then approved by referendum and a new Government of Iraq was elected. Foreign troops remained in Iraq after the establishment of a new government due to an insurgency that developed shortly after the invasion, with violence peaking in mid 2007. In August 2010 the U.S. became the last member of the coalition to cease combat operations in Iraq. 50,000 US troops remain in the country in an advisory role; their full withdrawal mandated by 31 December 2011.[6]

 

[drsmith1072]

1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.

2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.

3.) Thousands of americans killed for something that had nothing to do with defense.

4.) Tens (maybe a hundred) thousand Iraqi's killed.

5.) Installed a government with a heavy islamic religious influence written into it. I can't believe republicans support this, my guess is they ignore this fact.

6.) Now americans will likely be taxed the rest of their lives to pay for the soldiers and bureacrats installed permanently in Iraq.

7.) Showed that we're willing to use our military to enforce UN sanctions having nothing to do with the US.

Those are just off the top of my head I'm sure I missed some obvious points. The only good thing is HOPEFULLY with the WMD lie americans have become less trustworthy of government and are less likely to cheer on another unprovoked war.

1) How much damage has terrorism done to our economy? And do not claim Saddam had nothing to do with nothing. we will never know how much, how longand whom profited from it

So because we don't know that must mean that he was involved?? Got it.

2) why would you say that?

Drock can give his argument on that.

3) Thats an opinion

isn't that what you are expressing??

4) Saddam killed those people

So saddam invaded his own country with US forces and used out miltary both air and ground to kill innocent people even after his death?? WOW!

5) Thats the will of the Iraqi people

Uh ok. LOL

6) Iraqi war/Failed stimulus, same cost. That does not include many un-knowns that the Iraqi war may of off-set

HUH?? do you actually believe that you are making any sense? What can the COST of a war offset??

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

Really?? Yet one of the primary claims of the right was that we invaded because they violated un resolutions. So thank you for admitting that one of the reasons for the invasion was BS. LOL

 

[JRK]

Yeah. The propeller on your hat.
Look up Iraq birth defects.....just for shits and giggles.
Take paper towels cuz you'll probably get off on what you see.

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing
There are no winners in any war, but the goals that where set where accomplished

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

WOW! rewrite history much??

Inspectors were in iraq on the ground doing their jobs. W decided to go against the UN and told the inspectors to leave as he invaded a country claiming that they violated a UN resolution, which should be a call made by the UN, even as W went against the UN to invade.


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

rewriting history huh?
this is the event that lead to the invasion
Saddam lied to much
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

thats from the UN 6 weeks prior to your invasion

 

[drsmith1072]

What would the charge against Bush or Cheney be? Specifically, using US criminal justice code? The exact law?

See, Sallow is a stupid fuck - he spews shit to smear the opposition and bolster his shameful party.

But others, who are not as shallow as Sallow, should endeavor to actually THINK the problem through.

The mind of Sallow is only capable of "Democrat good - HATE REPUBLICAN."

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

Being one of the rare americans who takes the Constitution seriously I know I sound like a loon, but you either approve of the Iraq War and the other unconstitutional wars or you take the Constitution seriously and want it abided by.

There's no in between.

Really?
this is your OPINION
And mine without the name calling follows


Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism: Iraq and Beyond
Published on October 2, 2002 by Jack Spencer BACKGROUNDER #1600
Print PDF
Download PDF
SHARE
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority. Congress must now make its voice heard on a key issue of national security and bring to a vote support for President George W. Bush's strategy for pursuing the war on terrorism in the way that he, as commander in chief, deems necessary.
As the nature of the threats to the United States changes, so must the nation's approach to its defense. To fulfill his constitutional responsibility, the President must have the flexibility to address these threats as they emerge; and, given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nations hostile to America, in an increasing number of cases, this may require applying military power before the United States or its interests are struck. In situations where the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that behavioral trends, capability, and motives all point to imminent threat, it may be necessary for the President to attack preemptively.
While there has been little argument over the use of armed force in Afghanistan to retaliate against an act of aggression, preemptive action is also clearly justifiable because the following principles apply:
PRINCIPLE #1: The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The most basic expression of a nation's sovereignty is action taken in self-defense. Traditional international law recognizes that right,1 and the United Nations Charter is wholly consistent with it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
PRINCIPLE #2: The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. 2 The right to self-defense incorporates the principle of anticipatory self-defense, which is particularly salient in the war on terrorism. The reality of international life in the 21st century is that nations or organizations that wish to challenge America or Western powers increasingly are seeking weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political objectives. The only effective response may be to destroy those capabilities before they are used. The tenet of traditional, customary international law that allows for this preventive or preemptive action is "anticipatory self-defense."
An oft-cited incident that validates the practice of anticipatory self-defense as part of international law occurred in 1837. That year, British forces crossed into American territory to destroy a Canadian ship, anticipating that the ship would be used to support an anti-British insurrection. The British government claimed its actions were necessary for self-defense, and the United States accepted that explanation.3
While there is debate as to whether or not this principle of international law survived the adoption of the U.N. Charter, the fact is that neither the charter nor the actions of member states since the charter came into force outlaw the principle.4 Israel has invoked the right of anticipatory self-defense numerous times throughout its history, including incidents in 1956 when it preemptively struck Egypt and in 1967 when it struck Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as those nations were preparing an attack.
The United States has also asserted its right to anticipatory self-defense. A classic example occurred in 1962 when President John Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba--a clear act of aggression--during the Cuban missile crisis. Although no shots had been fired, President Kennedy's preemptive action was imperative for the protection of American security. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked this right at least twice: first, in 1983, when he ordered an invasion of Grenada to protect U.S. nationals from potential harm, and again in 1986, when he ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya.
When any nation that is overtly hostile to America or its allies is developing weapons of mass destruction, has ties to international terrorist, and intelligence data give reason to believe that there is an intent to attack, the threshold of the United States' right to invoke a response based on anticipatory self-defense has clearly been passed.
PRINCIPLE #3: The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization veto power over U.S. actions that would otherwise be lawful and fully in accord with the Constitution.5
PRINCIPLE # 4: The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense." The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President commander in chief. Since the birth of the nation, this division of power has given rise to tension between the executive and legislative branches of government regarding who can authorize the use of force.6
Debate regarding this matter gave rise to the War Powers Resolution,7 which states that the President can use force to protect the nation without congressional authorization for 60 to 90 days. Many, including every President since this resolution came into force in 1973, have regarded the document as unconstitutional. Most, however, agree that the President has the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization.8 It should be noted that if Congress is truly opposed to any military action authorized by the President, it has the power to defund that mission, making it impossible to carry out.

So does that also apply to obama and the terrorist supporting state of libya or do you only apply this defense to rightwing presidents??

 

[Truthseeker420]

Iraq is now the third most corrupt country in the world Iraq is now the third most corrupt country in the world

 

[drsmith1072]

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing
There are no winners in any war, but the goals that where set where accomplished

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

WOW! rewrite history much??

Inspectors were in iraq on the ground doing their jobs. W decided to go against the UN and told the inspectors to leave as he invaded a country claiming that they violated a UN resolution, which should be a call made by the UN, even as W went against the UN to invade.


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

rewriting history huh?
this is the event that lead to the invasion
Saddam lied to much
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

thats from the UN 6 weeks prior to your invasion

Yes you did try to rewrite history and apparently lack the ability to follow time and a simple discussion.

Fact is that inspectors were on the ground bush told them to leave BEFORE they had finished their job as he went against the UN to attack iraq fior violating a UN resolution.
So what was going on at the time bush invaded?? Why go back "6 weeks prior" to when we know what was going on at that time?

BTW is there a link in there anywhere??

Furthermore, do you actually believe if you ignore FACTS that they will just go away??

 

[JRK]

1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.

2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.

3.) Thousands of americans killed for something that had nothing to do with defense.

4.) Tens (maybe a hundred) thousand Iraqi's killed.

5.) Installed a government with a heavy islamic religious influence written into it. I can't believe republicans support this, my guess is they ignore this fact.

6.) Now americans will likely be taxed the rest of their lives to pay for the soldiers and bureacrats installed permanently in Iraq.

7.) Showed that we're willing to use our military to enforce UN sanctions having nothing to do with the US.

Those are just off the top of my head I'm sure I missed some obvious points. The only good thing is HOPEFULLY with the WMD lie americans have become less trustworthy of government and are less likely to cheer on another unprovoked war.

1) How much damage has terrorism done to our economy? And do not claim Saddam had nothing to do with nothing. we will never know how much, how longand whom profited from it

So because we don't know that must mean that he was involved?? Got it.



Drock can give his argument on that.



isn't that what you are expressing??



So saddam invaded his own country with US forces and used out miltary both air and ground to kill innocent people even after his death?? WOW!



Uh ok. LOL

6) Iraqi war/Failed stimulus, same cost. That does not include many un-knowns that the Iraqi war may of off-set

HUH?? do you actually believe that you are making any sense? What can the COST of a war offset??

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

Really?? Yet one of the primary claims of the right was that we invaded because they violated un resolutions. So thank you for admitting that one of the reasons for the invasion was BS. LOL

1) the war and the cost of the war is really unknown, at best 1.5 trillion over years. about the same as Obama's failed stimulus if you add his part of tarp to it
Remember the troops are some were no matter
getting paid
eating
sleeping riding
flying
etc....
2) Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
IRAQ

October 11, 2002

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

3&4 do not exist without 9-11, Saddam and 1991 Saddam. thats not our fault
Saddam had ample time to do the right thing

5) Timeline: Iraq votes on new government

Tweet
Share this
inShare
Digg
Email
Print
Related News
Iraq approves new government with Maliki as PM
Tue, Dec 21 2010
Infighting delays Iraqi government formation
Mon, Dec 20 2010
Foreign troop death toll in Afghanistan in 2010 nears 700
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Iraq to unveil new government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Maliki to name Iraq government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Related Topics
World »
BAGHDAD | Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:55am EST
(Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a new government on Tuesday, nine months after an inconclusive election left politics in limbo and delayed investments to rebuild the country after years of war [ID:nLDE6BK12I].

Here are some key events since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

March 20, 2003 - U.S. and British forces invade from Kuwait.

April 9 - U.S. troops take Baghdad, Saddam disappears.

July 13 - The Iraqi Governing Council -- 25 Iraqis chosen under U.S. supervision -- holds inaugural meeting in Baghdad.

August 19 - Suicide truck bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad kills 22 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

December 13 - U.S. troops capture Saddam near Tikrit. U.S. governor of Iraq Paul Bremer breaks news with: "We got him."

March 8, 2004 - Governing Council signs interim constitution.

June 1 - Governing Council dissolved to make way for interim government led by Iyad Allawi. Ghazi al-Yawar named president.

June 28 - United States formally returns sovereignty. Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved. Bremer leaves Iraq.

January 30, 2005 - Shi'ite-led United Iraqi Alliance dominates vote for local council and interim parliament. Most Sunnis do not vote.

March 16 - National Assembly holds first meeting.

October 15 - Referendum ratifies constitution despite Sunni Arab opposition.

December 15 - Parliamentary election. More Sunnis vote this time than in the January election.

February 10, 2006 - Final results give Shi'ite-led UIA near majority with 128 seats. Sunni Arabs have 58 and Kurds 53.

February 22 - Bombing of Shi'ite shrine in Samarra sparks widespread sectarian violence, raising fears of civil war.

November 5 - A Baghdad court finds Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity. He is executed on December 30.

June 15, 2007 - U.S. military says it has completed its troop build-up, or "surge," to 160,000 soldiers to quell violence.

August 14 - Truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq kill more than 400 people -- the deadliest militant attacks in Iraq since 2003.

January 12, 2008 - Parliament votes for junior members of Saddam's Baath Party to return to government jobs, a key to reconciliation.

July 19 - Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc rejoins the government when parliament approves its candidates for ministerial posts.

November 17 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011.

January 1, 2009 - U.S.-Iraq security pact comes into force, placing the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops under Iraqi authority.

January 31 - Iraq holds provincial elections, the most peaceful vote since the fall of Saddam, demonstrating big security gains. Maliki's nationalist coalition scores big victory at the expense of sectarian and federalist parties.

February 27 - U.S. President Barack Obama announces plan to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq by August 31, 2010. He makes an unannounced visit to Baghdad on April 7.

December 8 - Iraq sets March 7, 2010 as the long awaited date for a general election, hours after at least 112 people are killed when bombers strike government buildings in Baghdad.

March 7, 2010 - Parliamentary elections.

May 10 - At least 125 are killed in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country by suspected Sunni Islamists.

May 16 - Iyad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition wins 91 seats in the March 7 elections. Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law bloc is second with 89 seats.

August 7 - The U.S. 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last brigade mainly focused on combat, hands over to Iraqi forces.

November 11 - Incumbent Prime Minister Maliki's Shi'ite-led alliance will get the prime minister post, guaranteeing him a second term, while minority Kurds are to keep the presidency after Iraq's main factions agree on the top three political posts, ending an eight-month deadlock after the March elections.

December 21 - Parliament approves Maliki's new 42-strong cabinet list, which includes the appointment of outgoing Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani as deputy prime minister for energy and outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Esawi as finance minister. Hoshiyar Zebari is reappointed foreign minister.

6) in 2007 we where within 150 billion of breaking even, the war in Iraq was at its peak
we went over budget from 03-08 less than 2 trillion
from 09-10 it was over 3 trillion

 

[slukasiewski]

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

Am missing something here?

Yeah.

It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.

Obama's illegal war. Why don't you enlist.

 

[drsmith1072]

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

{Summary

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions}

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq

Next?

Did you bother reading your own quote??

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy "


Both one and two state that the president had to go through the UN security council and he bypassed it and chose to invade anyway.

Next!

 

[drsmith1072]

1) How much damage has terrorism done to our economy? And do not claim Saddam had nothing to do with nothing. we will never know how much, how longand whom profited from it

So because we don't know that must mean that he was involved?? Got it.



Drock can give his argument on that.



isn't that what you are expressing??



So saddam invaded his own country with US forces and used out miltary both air and ground to kill innocent people even after his death?? WOW!



Uh ok. LOL



HUH?? do you actually believe that you are making any sense? What can the COST of a war offset??

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

Really?? Yet one of the primary claims of the right was that we invaded because they violated un resolutions. So thank you for admitting that one of the reasons for the invasion was BS. LOL

1) the war and the cost of the war is really unknown, at best 1.5 trillion over years. about the same as Obama's failed stimulus if you add his part of tarp to it
Remember the troops are some were no matter
getting paid
eating
sleeping riding
flying
etc....
2) Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
IRAQ

October 11, 2002

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

3&4 do not exist without 9-11, Saddam and 1991 Saddam. thats not our fault
Saddam had ample time to do the right thing

5) Timeline: Iraq votes on new government

Tweet
Share this
inShare
Digg
Email
Print
Related News
Iraq approves new government with Maliki as PM
Tue, Dec 21 2010
Infighting delays Iraqi government formation
Mon, Dec 20 2010
Foreign troop death toll in Afghanistan in 2010 nears 700
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Iraq to unveil new government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Maliki to name Iraq government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Related Topics
World »
BAGHDAD | Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:55am EST
(Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a new government on Tuesday, nine months after an inconclusive election left politics in limbo and delayed investments to rebuild the country after years of war [ID:nLDE6BK12I].

Here are some key events since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

March 20, 2003 - U.S. and British forces invade from Kuwait.

April 9 - U.S. troops take Baghdad, Saddam disappears.

July 13 - The Iraqi Governing Council -- 25 Iraqis chosen under U.S. supervision -- holds inaugural meeting in Baghdad.

August 19 - Suicide truck bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad kills 22 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

December 13 - U.S. troops capture Saddam near Tikrit. U.S. governor of Iraq Paul Bremer breaks news with: "We got him."

March 8, 2004 - Governing Council signs interim constitution.

June 1 - Governing Council dissolved to make way for interim government led by Iyad Allawi. Ghazi al-Yawar named president.

June 28 - United States formally returns sovereignty. Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved. Bremer leaves Iraq.

January 30, 2005 - Shi'ite-led United Iraqi Alliance dominates vote for local council and interim parliament. Most Sunnis do not vote.

March 16 - National Assembly holds first meeting.

October 15 - Referendum ratifies constitution despite Sunni Arab opposition.

December 15 - Parliamentary election. More Sunnis vote this time than in the January election.

February 10, 2006 - Final results give Shi'ite-led UIA near majority with 128 seats. Sunni Arabs have 58 and Kurds 53.

February 22 - Bombing of Shi'ite shrine in Samarra sparks widespread sectarian violence, raising fears of civil war.

November 5 - A Baghdad court finds Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity. He is executed on December 30.

June 15, 2007 - U.S. military says it has completed its troop build-up, or "surge," to 160,000 soldiers to quell violence.

August 14 - Truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq kill more than 400 people -- the deadliest militant attacks in Iraq since 2003.

January 12, 2008 - Parliament votes for junior members of Saddam's Baath Party to return to government jobs, a key to reconciliation.

July 19 - Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc rejoins the government when parliament approves its candidates for ministerial posts.

November 17 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011.

January 1, 2009 - U.S.-Iraq security pact comes into force, placing the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops under Iraqi authority.

January 31 - Iraq holds provincial elections, the most peaceful vote since the fall of Saddam, demonstrating big security gains. Maliki's nationalist coalition scores big victory at the expense of sectarian and federalist parties.

February 27 - U.S. President Barack Obama announces plan to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq by August 31, 2010. He makes an unannounced visit to Baghdad on April 7.

December 8 - Iraq sets March 7, 2010 as the long awaited date for a general election, hours after at least 112 people are killed when bombers strike government buildings in Baghdad.

March 7, 2010 - Parliamentary elections.

May 10 - At least 125 are killed in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country by suspected Sunni Islamists.

May 16 - Iyad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition wins 91 seats in the March 7 elections. Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law bloc is second with 89 seats.

August 7 - The U.S. 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last brigade mainly focused on combat, hands over to Iraqi forces.

November 11 - Incumbent Prime Minister Maliki's Shi'ite-led alliance will get the prime minister post, guaranteeing him a second term, while minority Kurds are to keep the presidency after Iraq's main factions agree on the top three political posts, ending an eight-month deadlock after the March elections.

December 21 - Parliament approves Maliki's new 42-strong cabinet list, which includes the appointment of outgoing Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani as deputy prime minister for energy and outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Esawi as finance minister. Hoshiyar Zebari is reappointed foreign minister.

6) in 2007 we where within 150 billion of breaking even, the war in Iraq was at its peak
we went over budget from 03-08 less than 2 trillion
from 09-10 it was over 3 trillion

Thanks for the spam you be sure and let me know when you want to talk about what I actually said. LOL

 

[JRK]

This is the last time I'll repeat myself, in order to go to war it HAS to be approved by Congress according to the US Constitution.

{Summary

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions}

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq

Next?

Did you bother reading your own quote??

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy "


Both one and two state that the president had to go through the UN security council and he bypassed it and chose to invade anyway.

Next!

Yes I do
do you read what the UN wrote Jan 2003?


Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

Now this would be year 12
and would be 18 months after GWB told Saddam to do the right thing or else
How you interpret that UN statement and how GWB and I did is just that
an interpretation

if you really think there is a passage in that document that states GWB needed the permission of the UN to invade
we are at a place we need to move on from

The notice, not permission