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

[drsmith1072]

Your Cheney quote is correct
Your Bush analogy is correct
Your view of the munitions is correct
The "yellow cake" was not secure according to the article

Why was the Iraqi war a failure?
Saddam was suppose to not have any munitions
He lied about those
He lied about Anthrax
are we to believe that he did not lie about anything else? and that claims that there were munitions sent to Syria?

What do we believe?
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
read this link, it is a eye opener

And here are some more
iraq, syria munitions - Google Search

So in your first semi non spam post your argument is basically, he was dishonest so that is proiof that he must have lied about other things as well?? LOL


Again why is it that you can bring up UN sanctions being ingored when you tell others

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

If it is ok for you to try and justify the invasion by claiming saddam violated UN resolutions the why isn't ok for anyone else to bring up how W went against the UN and their resolutions when he kicked the inspectors out before they could finish their job even as he was trying to go after Iraq for violating UN resolutions??

I do not need to justify it, it happened
we won
You know this circle with you can go on for ever
Your debating why we invaded, I just stated it was the right thing to do

You don't need to justify it and yet what is your purpose in spamming this thread with your endless line up of rightwing propaganda for if it's not an attempt to justify the invasion???

WOW! first you "forgot" the topic if this thread and now after pages upon pages of you defending and trying to justify the invasion you are now claiming that you don't need to. LOL

You want to drag in the UN, thats fine with me

Your whole argument is based on WMD's and iraq's violation of UN resolution as a justification for the invasion. YOU continue to bring up the UN even as you told others not to come at you with "that BS" even though your entire argument is based on saddam not "keeping his word" and destroying all of his WMDs.

I was showing and have shown that the UN was concerned about Anthrax and other WMDs not accounted for weeks before we invaded
you know Mr. Smith Saddam did this to his self.

Do you NOT see that this is yet another example of you bringing up the UN?? That is what your whole argument is about so why is it that you claim that I am the one bringing it up when it is the core of your entire argument??

My biggest issue with you is I never hear that from you

Yes he was a bad guy but he did not CHOOSE to invade his own country with the US military. Our CiC at the time made that CHOICE. Don't you think he should be responsibile for his CHOICE?

And spam?
All I was doing was rebutting the same BS from the left with the same Links
Big brother did not like it
thats the only reason I stopped

In order to rebut you need to say something that addresses what has ACTUALLY been said. Your problem is that you were just spamming the thread with a cut and paste of the whole site while not offering anything SPECIFIC about what you were trying to rebut.

 

[dvinman]

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

Am missing something here?

"What country ended the dictatorship in Iraq, where there is now freedom of speech, and elections where votes count?"

I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to think that Iraq is better off now;

better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years, better now with the most important museum in the world ravaged and its artifacts taken to UK and USA, better now with most of its university professors and its scientists gone to other countries, an enormous brain drain, better now with cluster bombs all over which will take another 50 years to explode and the cancer from depleted uranium.

 

[JRK]

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

Am missing something here?

"What country ended the dictatorship in Iraq, where there is now freedom of speech, and elections where votes count?"

I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to think that Iraq is better off now;

better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years, better now with the most important museum in the world ravaged and its artifacts taken to UK and USA, better now with most of its university professors and its scientists gone to other countries, an enormous brain drain, better now with cluster bombs all over which will take another 50 years to explode and the cancer from depleted uranium.

Do you have any links to back your information?
I mean 1.7 million dead?
uranium? what uranium and what cluster bombs
Dude chill out

 

[drsmith1072]

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.

Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001

Not according to reagan who removed iraq from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

Furthermore would you care to address what blind boo actually said or is sidestepping all that you have to offer?

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't recall President Bush saying that because Iraq has an arsinal of 500 old chemical weapons (produced in the 1980s as per your link) we need to invade and occupy them. No he warned us about Mushroom Clouds over American cities because Saddam was actively seeking to produce a nuclear device so he could give it to the likes of al Queda.

The 550 tonnes of Yellowcake was not under Saddams control since the Kuwait war.

Atta in Prague? Naw.....

Cheney said: “We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11.”

Host Tim Russert then asked him: “And the meeting with Atta did not occur?”

Cheney replied: “We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm …”

Atta in Prague: Did It Happen? - Newsweek

Failure.

Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.

Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001

His support was limited to para-military groups fighting in Palestine and Iran since he was kicked out of Kuwait. These groups never had access to the more advance weapons he had.

 

[JRK]

Maybe they should send Trump's investigators over to have look.
I bet they won't believe what they find.

Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001

Not according to reagan who removed iraq from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

Furthermore would you care to address what blind boo actually said or is sidestepping all that you have to offer?

Side step?
there has been over 600 responses with this thread
there has nothing been side stepped
What does Reagen have to do with the events of 1991 thru 2003?
Look he acted stupidly with these events, and according to many sources the very Scud missiles he used in 1991, we help build
What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?

 

[JRK]

I posted this thread and ask the simple question

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nue-to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure.html

And the answers I have got lately are about 1980s
Saddam Hussein is what that war was about in 2003
Not Ronald Reagan and what occurred in the 80s when Iran was at war with Iraq and we chose to support Iraq

Saddam had 18 months to get out
he chose not to
Saddam had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions
He chose not to
That war was about nothing else
It was a success
Saddam Hussein is no longer a problem

Why do you Mr Smith and You Blind Boo think we failed here?
did we fail here because Saddam Hussein used weapons he got from us in a manner that he was not suppose to?
Did he Gas Iranians and his own people with those weapons, no matter where he got them, because we helped in the 80s? and that makes that war a failure?
this world is not a better place because of it?

by the way, there are people like Colin Powell that deny much of this

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''

 

[idb]

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

Am missing something here?

"What country ended the dictatorship in Iraq, where there is now freedom of speech, and elections where votes count?"

I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to think that Iraq is better off now;

better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years, better now with the most important museum in the world ravaged and its artifacts taken to UK and USA, better now with most of its university professors and its scientists gone to other countries, an enormous brain drain, better now with cluster bombs all over which will take another 50 years to explode and the cancer from depleted uranium.

Do you have any links to back your information?
I mean 1.7 million dead?
uranium? what uranium and what cluster bombs
Dude chill out

What do you mean "what uranium"?

 

[idb]

I posted this thread and ask the simple question

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nue-to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure.html

And the answers I have got lately are about 1980s
Saddam Hussein is what that war was about in 2003
Not Ronald Reagan and what occurred in the 80s when Iran was at war with Iraq and we chose to support Iraq

Saddam had 18 months to get out
he chose not to
Saddam had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions
He chose not to
That war was about nothing else
It was a success
Saddam Hussein is no longer a problem

Why do you Mr Smith and You Blind Boo think we failed here?
did we fail here because Saddam Hussein used weapons he got from us in a manner that he was not suppose to?
Did he Gas Iranians and his own people with those weapons, no matter where he got them, because we helped in the 80s? and that makes that war a failure?
this world is not a better place because of it?

A reply based on 2011 might be "do you still have American troops dying in Iraq?".

 

[drsmith1072]

Blind Boo is it not true that Saddam supported terrorism?
His bluffs in the 80s and 90s became no more chances in 2001

Not according to reagan who removed iraq from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

Furthermore would you care to address what blind boo actually said or is sidestepping all that you have to offer?

Side step?
there has been over 600 responses with this thread
there has nothing been side stepped

You have sidestepped so many questions as you spammed the board with your nonresponsive cut and pasting of entire websites and have been called out for it on many occasions, so NOW you pretend that it's never happened??


What does Reagen have to do with the events of 1991 thru 2003?
Look he acted stupidly with these events, and according to many sources the very Scud missiles he used in 1991, we help build
What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?

YOU were the one that talked about focusing on where it began when you tried to blame clinton. However, the FACT is and has been shown in this very thread that saddam was supported by reagan and his administration when he was using chemical weapons and removed from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism on reagans watch.

Dude do you realize how all over the place you are?? First you look back for excuses and justifications for the invasion now you ask "What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?"

OMG You literally are retarded aren't you??

Get a clue, stop spamming and come back when yo have something valid to offer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

better now with 3.2 million refugees, less electricity than they had 7 years ago, better now with 1.7 million Iraqis dead, better now with their country to be occupied for another 20 to 50 years

Why not say 4 billion dead? I mean, since you're just making shit up, why not REALLY pump it up?

[Documented civilian deaths from violence

100,627 – 109,924 ]

Iraq Body Count

Hey, leftists lie - it's just what you do...

 

[georgephillip]

What's your definition of terrorism?

"The use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"?

The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court, and we are also the only country that rejected a Security Council resolution calling for ALL states to observe international law.

Remember Oklahoma City?

"Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut.

"I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left.

"It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret."

Your indifference to US state-sponsored terror makes your criticisms of Saddam's crimes appear hypocritical, at best. It also blinds you to the fact many of Saddam's crimes only occurred because the US provided many of the weapons he used.

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

What?
And as far as the bombing in Beirut, are you saying we had US citizens blow up a Mosque?
I am having trouble following that

Now one I understand clearly is that Saddam's crimes where only because he had the weapons to perform those crimes
Thats the same as saying colt made the 45, so colt is the reason we have murder in this country

With respect to your opinion there is allot of information out there that its in peoples best interest to use against us
You have picked up on this information as it is 100% fact with no 1/2-1/4 truths in it

Saddam was told by the world what to do in 1991
he did not even come close
Bush Sr made a HUGE mistake not finishing this in 1991
Clinton seen it coming, for the right reasons
9-11, Saddam had no choice

It is that simple

Have you noticed any tendency in US foreign policy to use coercive means aimed at civilians in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims?

"# 1983 - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.

# 1985 - CIA's revenge backfires. Lebanese CIA agents detonate truck bomb in Beirut in a failed attempt to assassinate Shia leader, Sheik Fadlallah. Eighty-three civilians killed, 240 wounded."

Not So Fast, Sen. Lott

Do you understand Saddam would never have possessed the precursors necessary to manufacture his poison gas or the helicopters to use the finished product "on his own people" without Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell?

What authority did Bush Sr possess to "finish" Saddam in '91?
Wasn't his mandate limited to evicting Iraqi conscripts from Kuwait?

Clinton has also committed his own crimes against civilians:

"Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? That’s not the CIA.

"That’s the Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported.

The following question and answer sums up just how simple all this really is:

Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the doctrinal system?

A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low–intensity warfare.' That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.

"Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims."

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

"# 1983 - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.

Are you fucking stupid?

The shit you make up and post is just head shaking.

Lebanon was a Christian region going back to the 1300's - dumbfuck.

 

[georgephillip]

"# 1983 - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.

Are you fucking stupid?

The shit you make up and post is just head shaking.

Lebanon was a Christian region going back to the 1300's - dumbfuck.

Think any of these guys were "made up", Einstein?

" Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World II..."

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were the first Christians in Lebanon terrorists waving broadswords and wearing big red crosses on their chests?

 

[JRK]

Not according to reagan who removed iraq from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

Furthermore would you care to address what blind boo actually said or is sidestepping all that you have to offer?

Side step?
there has been over 600 responses with this thread
there has nothing been side stepped

You have sidestepped so many questions as you spammed the board with your nonresponsive cut and pasting of entire websites and have been called out for it on many occasions, so NOW you pretend that it's never happened??


What does Reagen have to do with the events of 1991 thru 2003?
Look he acted stupidly with these events, and according to many sources the very Scud missiles he used in 1991, we help build
What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?

YOU were the one that talked about focusing on where it began when you tried to blame clinton. However, the FACT is and has been shown in this very thread that saddam was supported by reagan and his administration when he was using chemical weapons and removed from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism on reagans watch.

Dude do you realize how all over the place you are?? First you look back for excuses and justifications for the invasion now you ask "What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?"

OMG You literally are retarded aren't you??

Get a clue, stop spamming and come back when yo have something valid to offer.

Clinton?
Blame Clinton on what?
Dude do you realize how much with each response your age level goes down?
And where exactly was that information on Saddam being a terrorist suppose to come from?
No I ask what the hell does 1981 have to do with 2003.
Let me add that the extent of what went on ion the 80s is about as clear as to How we are going to pay for Obama care
If you have nothing to say to me in rebuttle, please do
If your going to babble, go away please
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for ''regime change'' in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.



ADS BY GOOGLE




During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com

 

[JRK]

What's your definition of terrorism?

"The use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims"?

The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court, and we are also the only country that rejected a Security Council resolution calling for ALL states to observe international law.

Remember Oklahoma City?

"Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing, and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut.

"I didn’t see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum number of people as they left.

"It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a Muslim cleric whom they didn’t like and whom they missed. It was not very secret."

Your indifference to US state-sponsored terror makes your criticisms of Saddam's crimes appear hypocritical, at best. It also blinds you to the fact many of Saddam's crimes only occurred because the US provided many of the weapons he used.

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

What?
And as far as the bombing in Beirut, are you saying we had US citizens blow up a Mosque?
I am having trouble following that

Now one I understand clearly is that Saddam's crimes where only because he had the weapons to perform those crimes
Thats the same as saying colt made the 45, so colt is the reason we have murder in this country

With respect to your opinion there is allot of information out there that its in peoples best interest to use against us
You have picked up on this information as it is 100% fact with no 1/2-1/4 truths in it

Saddam was told by the world what to do in 1991
he did not even come close
Bush Sr made a HUGE mistake not finishing this in 1991
Clinton seen it coming, for the right reasons
9-11, Saddam had no choice

It is that simple

Have you noticed any tendency in US foreign policy to use coercive means aimed at civilians in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims?

"# 1983 - US attempts to install a client, Christian/fascist regime in Lebanon, drive out Syrian influence. US Marines sent to Beirut, under cover of `peace-keepers.' They are bombed out of Lebanon by Shia militants: 309 Americans die, including CIA's top Mideast staff.

# 1985 - CIA's revenge backfires. Lebanese CIA agents detonate truck bomb in Beirut in a failed attempt to assassinate Shia leader, Sheik Fadlallah. Eighty-three civilians killed, 240 wounded."

Not So Fast, Sen. Lott

Do you understand Saddam would never have possessed the precursors necessary to manufacture his poison gas or the helicopters to use the finished product "on his own people" without Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell?

What authority did Bush Sr possess to "finish" Saddam in '91?
Wasn't his mandate limited to evicting Iraqi conscripts from Kuwait?

Clinton has also committed his own crimes against civilians:

"Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? That’s not the CIA.

"That’s the Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported.

The following question and answer sums up just how simple all this really is:

Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the doctrinal system?

A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low–intensity warfare.' That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.

"Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims."

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

I have come to the conclusion your not even an American
And thats ok
as far as your assertion that we area terrorist state, I hate you feel that way when we spend billions every year helping millions and I know of no place in this country that children are raised to strap a bomb to them selves to kill themselves and as many civilians as they can

What authority did Saddam have to invade Kuwait?

Israel? Do not worry about that little country any more. you have Obama in there now
Your desire to leave those people to the mercy of terrorist is coming true
are do you prefer the oven style?
When the killing stops, the killing will stop

 

[sparky]

measuring success?

when we see our troops march down main street in a homecoming parade imho....

 

[JRK]

measuring success?

when we see our troops march down main street in a homecoming parade imho....

I agree
Let me add I hated this. I think the liberal thinks the Con enjoys war.
Not this one

 

[drsmith1072]

Side step?
there has been over 600 responses with this thread
there has nothing been side stepped

You have sidestepped so many questions as you spammed the board with your nonresponsive cut and pasting of entire websites and have been called out for it on many occasions, so NOW you pretend that it's never happened??


What does Reagen have to do with the events of 1991 thru 2003?
Look he acted stupidly with these events, and according to many sources the very Scud missiles he used in 1991, we help build
What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?

YOU were the one that talked about focusing on where it began when you tried to blame clinton. However, the FACT is and has been shown in this very thread that saddam was supported by reagan and his administration when he was using chemical weapons and removed from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism on reagans watch.

Dude do you realize how all over the place you are?? First you look back for excuses and justifications for the invasion now you ask "What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?"

OMG You literally are retarded aren't you??

Get a clue, stop spamming and come back when yo have something valid to offer.

Clinton?
Blame Clinton on what?
Dude do you realize how much with each response your age level goes down?
And where exactly was that information on Saddam being a terrorist suppose to come from?
No I ask what the hell does 1981 have to do with 2003.
Let me add that the extent of what went on ion the 80s is about as clear as to How we are going to pay for Obama care
If you have nothing to say to me in rebuttle, please do
If your going to babble, go away please
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for ''regime change'' in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.



ADS BY GOOGLE




During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com

Ok I repsonded to all of your BS and all you have to offer is more avoidance and lame personal attacks.

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

You were the one wanting to talk about the "root cause" and at one point you actually tried to blame clinton but IF you could follow a conversation and remember what you had previously said then I wouldn't have to go back and show you over and over again.

You mentioned the "root cause" and then chose to focus on events that occured AFTER reagan had helped saddam. You wanted to focus on the "root cause" and then chose to focus on a few branches of the tree and didn't even come close to the root as far as Us policy goes.

So if you are done with your avoidance, baseless personal attacks and spamming, which you obviously are not, please try to address something that I actualy said.

 

[JRK]

YOU were the one that talked about focusing on where it began when you tried to blame clinton. However, the FACT is and has been shown in this very thread that saddam was supported by reagan and his administration when he was using chemical weapons and removed from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism on reagans watch.

Dude do you realize how all over the place you are?? First you look back for excuses and justifications for the invasion now you ask "What in the hell does that have to do with 2003?"

OMG You literally are retarded aren't you??

Get a clue, stop spamming and come back when yo have something valid to offer.

Clinton?
Blame Clinton on what?
Dude do you realize how much with each response your age level goes down?
And where exactly was that information on Saddam being a terrorist suppose to come from?
No I ask what the hell does 1981 have to do with 2003.
Let me add that the extent of what went on ion the 80s is about as clear as to How we are going to pay for Obama care
If you have nothing to say to me in rebuttle, please do
If your going to babble, go away please
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for ''regime change'' in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.



ADS BY GOOGLE




During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was ''dead wrong,'' but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, ''My understanding is that what was provided'' to Iraq ''was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence.''

''I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages,'' he said, ''and doubt strongly that that occurred.''

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com

Ok I repsonded to all of your BS and all you have to offer is more avoidance and lame personal attacks.

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

You were the one wanting to talk about the "root cause" and at one point you actually tried to blame clinton but IF you could follow a conversation and remember what you had previously said then I wouldn't have to go back and show you over and over again.

You mentioned the "root cause" and then chose to focus on events that occured AFTER reagan had helped saddam. You wanted to focus on the "root cause" and then chose to focus on a few branches of the tree and didn't even come close to the root as far as Us policy goes.

So if you are done with your avoidance, baseless personal attacks and spamming, which you obviously are not, please try to address something that I actualy said.

THERE IS NOTHING TO BLAME CLINTON ABOUT, I HAVE NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT ANY OF THIS
His take on the intel was the same Bushes was
Pelosi s was
Kerrie's was
Kennedy's was
B Graham's was
Reagen helping Saddam?
You keep bringing up events that may or may not be true according to Colin Powell many are not.
Root Cause?
if you have a flat tire the root cause of that is the tire has no air, resolving that issue then is simple.
Why does the tire not hold air
The root cause of the war in Iraq was Saddam. Saddam took weapons no matter where he got them and used them for things that eventually cost him his life and his dictatorship
he Ignored
he lied
He lost

One other thing
you keep going in circles about the same thing
I am OK with that
You dis agree with everything GWB has ever done and I have ever said
I do not care

But I have never attacked you as a person
The comment about your age, I was being honest
People who debate about items that have nothing to do with the subject have never had to resolve many issues, that means there young and there very liberal, usually both
It is never personal
9-11 happened
GWB told Saddam what was coming
he didn't think GWB was telling the truth
he does now