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

[BlindBoo]

So what? Blix could have come back and said he found an underground city that was manufactoring Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons and the UNSC would still have had to authorized use of force (Or Iraq would have had to attack a member state).

http://www.grassrootspeace.org/scr1441hurd.doc

SCR 687 (2 April 1991) established the ceasefire terms. It stated that once Iraq officially notified the Secretary-General and the Council that Iraq accepted SCR 687’s provisions, then an official ceasefire would be in effect between Iraq and Kuwait/cooperating member states acting as SCR 678 authorized. Iraq’s only ceasefire obligation was official notification. SCR 687 contains no other ceasefire conditions. Iraq officially notified the required parties on 6 April 1991. Since then, a ceasefire has been in effect.

SCR 687 details Iraq’s forthgoing non-conventional disarmament “obligations”. These “obligations” were not ceasefire conditions. Rather, they were actions, in addition to the ceasefire term, that the Council required Iraq to take in the name of “international peace and security”. Because Iraq has not gained Council “...agreement that Iraq has completed all [relevant] actions”, the Council has continued to remain “seized” of Iraq as an “international peace and security issue”. Nevertheless, Council authorization for member states to use against Iraq ended with the ceasefire. Member states would have had continued force authorization only if Iraq had failed to execute its ceasefire obligation.


3. How the US Might Use SCR 1441 to Domestically and Internationally Justify Using Force Against Iraq

There are many possibilities. This document below focuses on three. The possibility presented in Section 3(iii) focuses on what might be the most important paragraphs in SCR 1441.

(i) US Officials might continue to ignore the 1991 ceasefire and UN Charter, and incorrectly interpret SCR 1441 warning language.

The context for SCR 1441 is the UN Charter and its use of force provisions, along with the 1991 ceasefire. Iraq has not attacked a member state since it invaded Kuwait. Since the SCR 678 authorization and later ceasefire that ended the authorization, the Council has not authorized member states to use force against Iraq. In SCR 678 the Council “...[a]uthorize[d] Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means...to restore international peace and security in the area”. Notably, the 2 October US/UK SCR draft proposed that a “further material breach of Iraq's obligations...authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area”. SCR 1441 on the other hand contains no “all necessary means” language, or, for that matter, any text which authorizes member states to use force against Iraq.

 

[drsmith1072]

{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

You really need to learn to read, follow a conversation and stop spamming. I merely quoted what the previous poster quoted only I focused on the fact that it states that bush had to go THROUGH the UN security council to enforce their resolutions.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the poster who originally posted it.

However, if it did state that he had to go through the UN to enforce their resolutions and W sidestepped that part of the process that would make his actions a violation of H.J.Res. 114 and therefore illegal.

 

[sinister59]

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

Am missing something here?

stabilized the country6 ? really ?
we invaded a sovereign country for no reason at all , not to save lives from a nut job killing his own people .no .

not from WMDs which we gave them but never found .

your number 3 is just stupid .

 

[JRK]

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

Am missing something here?

stabilized the country6 ? really ?
we invaded a sovereign country for no reason at all , not to save lives from a nut job killing his own people .no .

not from WMDs which we gave them but never found .

your number 3 is just stupid .

How stable would you call the United States if you read the NY times and every day it said "120 people killed in the US last night with knives, guns, chocking, etc...."
every day
Its about right

 

[Shooter]

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

Honestly? Because Bush had a "R" next to his name. If it would have been Obama in charge most of the Democrats would be cheering and claiming it to be a huge success.

I really hate partisan politics. It's very childish and immature. To constantly attack someone just because of their political affiliation is juvenile. Why are there so few people out there that look at the situation itself as opposed to allowing yourself to be blindly led around by the nose of a political party? Does no one use their head anymore? Is it really all about just defending the base whether it's right or wrong?

I despise partisan politics. I could care less about it. I don't give a hairy fuck about whether or not someone has a "R" or "D" in front of their name. You have to look at the situation itself and use your head without bias.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Looks like Iraq was way ahead of its time. The Tyrants are dropping like flys all over the Middle East. So say what you want about Iraq,but they really were the first domino to fall. And to all you pious & supposed "Anti-War" Lefty Wingers,just hop off your high horses because your carpet bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi is no different than what was done in Iraq. Lefty Wingers may try to spin that their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. Iraq really was the first domino to fall. So going by those standards,Iraq would have to be called a success.

 

[drsmith1072]

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.

false?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country
snopes.com: Former Iraqi General: WMD moved to Syria

failure? Saddam? gone
Iraq? republic
Terrorist? Gone, dead, desperate

I do not recall us taking anything in Iraq
nor do I recall keeping anything

you have you're opinion, i just wished it was based on accurate information

I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.

 

[sinister59]

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

Am missing something here?

stabilized the country6 ? really ?
we invaded a sovereign country for no reason at all , not to save lives from a nut job killing his own people .no .

not from WMDs which we gave them but never found .

your number 3 is just stupid .

How stable would you call the United States if you read the NY times and every day it said "120 people killed in the US last night with knives, guns, chocking, etc...."
every day
Its about right

sounds like st. louis .

but theses are criminal acts , iraq has ethnic murders going on still . how many car bombs have we had here in the states last year or the year before

 

[sinister59]

oh ya how stable would I call the US ? not vary we hate each other here , neighbors refusing to help others , repigs lying about everything , Dem's lying as much .
teabaggers wanting to destroy our educational system . medicare and all social programs .

jobs moving over seas at the same rate as bush had them move .

did I mention we hate each other ? the united part is gone its just America now .
no we're not stable .

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Iraq was the first domino to fall. This just can't be denied. So many could deem it a success. And guess what,this current Libyan War is not different than Iraq. I know the usual suspects are trying to claim their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. I'm certainly no Neocon or Socialist/Progressive and i do oppose aggressive Foreign Interventionism. But the dominoes are falling in the Middle East. The Tyrants are dropping like flies. So i can see why Neocons & Socialists/Progressives argue for aggressive Foreign Interventionism. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out though. Not sure if all this will be good or bad for the U.S. Time will tell i guess.

 

[drsmith1072]

Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.

"A peer-reviewed study in PLoS Medicine, based on IBC data, provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Feb 2011"

If you dispute these numbers, feel free to share your assessment and methodology.

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.

 

[drsmith1072]

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

Blind Boo if you go thru life and do not understand the tool called "root cause" you will never make it as far as you could
Why is a tire flat?
root cause every time will tell you because there is no air in it

why did any-one die in the Iraqi war?
because in 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait
because 19 insane Saudis used passenger jets as scud missiles in 2001
when we did not finish him off in 1991 then he was told what to do or else
the or else was not enforced until 2001

Saddam does not invade Kuwait
no war
no UN resolutions
no 9-11, no reason to take out the big stick
no-one dies
Its simple

If that is how you want to work this then who helped saddam during the iran-iraq war?? Who and which president supported him and helped him out??

I will give you a hint that will give you a good idea.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8]YouTube - Rumsfeld & Saddam Make Nice[/ame]

 

[drsmith1072]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

Are you nuts?
WMDs? where still there from the 80s
over 500 of them
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and many stated they left Iraq in the 18 months that we gave saddam to do the right thing
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
the cost of the war was never shipped to anyone but GWB? Why would you say that?
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

Brain dead? dude do not make such fool of yourself

So those old and rusted out munitions are evidence of an ongoing program with mobile weapons labs, multiple facilities, alluminum tubes as centrifuges and yellowcake from niger?? Really??

abiker correctly points out that most of the intel about iraq was made up (curveball) and was completely unreliable and you go to posting crap about weapons that were apparently lost in the desert and could no longer function as originally intended and could only be fatal with prolonged exposure as a counter to what abiker said??

You seem to be the one posting proof positive that you are braindead seeing as how you continue to spam the boards with the same moronic bs that has already been responded to and addressed a thousand times over.

 

[sinister59]

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.

on a teabaggers point of view it was to costly in money .
not worth the cost .
as for hate America ? LOL you sure do .

bush is ok but he did terrible things to our country in reputation money , troops lives , economy and more . but he s a nice guy . just s stupid republican .
hey like you .

 

[JRK]

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.

false?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country
snopes.com: Former Iraqi General: WMD moved to Syria

failure? Saddam? gone
Iraq? republic
Terrorist? Gone, dead, desperate

I do not recall us taking anything in Iraq
nor do I recall keeping anything

you have you're opinion, i just wished it was based on accurate information

I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.

So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?

 

[BlindBoo]

Looks like Iraq was way ahead of its time. The Tyrants are dropping like flys all over the Middle East. So say what you want about Iraq,but they really were the first domino to fall. And to all you pious & supposed "Anti-War" Lefty Wingers,just hop off your high horses because your carpet bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi is no different than what was done in Iraq. Lefty Wingers may try to spin that their Libya War is so different than Iraq,but it just isn't. Iraq really was the first domino to fall. So going by those standards,Iraq would have to be called a success.

So tell me how was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq the equavlance of the popular uprisings going on in other countries?

 

[JRK]

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.

on a teabaggers point of view it was to costly in money .
not worth the cost .
as for hate America ? LOL you sure do .

bush is ok but he did terrible things to our country in reputation money , troops lives , economy and more . but he s a nice guy . just s stupid republican .
hey like you .

I wrote a thread just about people like you
GWB reputation has what to do with the success we had in Iraq?
The troops volunteered to be there thru the end
The economy did great thru the 1st 1/2 2008
thru 2 recessions
2 stock market crashes
9-11
2 wars
6 major hurricanes including katrina
etc...
etc...
etc...

you do not want to list the reasons you feel we should not have went
why?

 

[drsmith1072]

Limited resources. Have to prioritize.

I think it was more a time limit. They couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions.

Yeah. That's it. Secure the oil minisrty so the weapons inspectors can't do their job.


Tell me:
Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?
What prompted Hans Blix to state, in February, that Iraq "has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"?

Uh in case you missed it W told the inspectors, who were on the ground in march doing their jobs, to leave because he was going to invade.

He didn't let the inspectors finish their job and you have the nerve to ask "Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?"

BTW it would be nice if you provided the FULL quote

"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity," he said.

How about later than feb?? Didn't he release a report in march as well?? Why no quotes from that??

 

[BlindBoo]

false?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country
snopes.com: Former Iraqi General: WMD moved to Syria

failure? Saddam? gone
Iraq? republic
Terrorist? Gone, dead, desperate

I do not recall us taking anything in Iraq
nor do I recall keeping anything

you have you're opinion, i just wished it was based on accurate information

I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.

So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?

Dan took one for the team obviously. The story about the special treatment President Bush reveiced getting in and through out his guard service(ignoring his AWOL status), not reporting for duty....ect and so on...all morphed into the Dan used a forged document story even though document was used to prove a single minor point. It's all about Dan.....

Dan's not going to give you the truth, he'll tell you the President's head shot violently forward after the fatal head wound. And since he saw the only movie of it, the nation beleived it, for a while.....

 

[JRK]

I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.

So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?

Dan took one for the team obviously. The story about the special treatment President Bush reveiced getting in and through out his guard service(ignoring his AWOL status), not reporting for duty....ect and so on...all morphed into the Dan used a forged document story even though document was used to prove a single minor point. It's all about Dan.....

Dan's not going to give you the truth, he'll tell you the President's head shot violently forward after the fatal head wound. And since he saw the only movie of it, the nation beleived it, for a while.....

The left amazes me
to question any news organization or web site as though ABC or MSNBC is such a better and more accurate source