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

[drsmith1072]

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

The comment about my age was an attack, spinning in a desperate attempt to justify it won't change that FACT.

Furthermore you have had plenty of other vieled personal attacks throughout this thread so please don't play dumb.

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

Exactly you look at the root cause and the root cause (saddam, according to you) existed and was in power BEFORE 1991 when he was helped by reagan's administration.

You are trying to argue that the tire has no air because it can't hold air even as you ignore the events PRIOR to where you begin your argument (1991) which contributed to the problem with the tire.

Once again you are all over the place and don't really address what was said. I am still waiting for you to go back and address previous questions that you werwe asked about your own words where your only response was to spam entire articles from websites that didn't really address what was said.

I guess I should expect another nonresponse this time around too.

BTW here is a link to a list of SOME of the questions that you had avoided previously as you asked "what question"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3584598-post581.html

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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

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.''

You got the answers about the 1980's because that is when the WMD(you keep bringing up) found in Iraq were built.

The invasion was a success. Securing and occupying the country has been a failure in that it was never secured, and a violent Civil war broke out. Yes the Occupiers are responsible for keeping order in the occupied lands. Mostly to me it is a failure because of the 4000+ soldiers we have lost there.

Funny to me is your relying on UNSC resolutions to condemn Saddam, yet fail to recognize the significance of the UNSC not approving military action in it final resolution to Saddam 1441.

The technology Saddam was able to aquire after Reagan took Iraq off the Supporting terrorist list allow him to build Chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore he was also able to start a clandestine Manhatten Project style Nuclear program thanks to Raygun era policies.

 

[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

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

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.''

You got the answers about the 1980's because that is when the WMD(you keep bringing up) found in Iraq were built.

The invasion was a success. Securing and occupying the country has been a failure in that it was never secured, and a violent Civil war broke out. Yes the Occupiers are responsible for keeping order in the occupied lands. Mostly to me it is a failure because of the 4000+ soldiers we have lost there.

Funny to me is your relying on UNSC resolutions to condemn Saddam, yet fail to recognize the significance of the UNSC not approving military action in it final resolution to Saddam 1441.

The technology Saddam was able to aquire after Reagan took Iraq off the Supporting terrorist list allow him to build Chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore he was also able to start a clandestine Manhatten Project style Nuclear program thanks to Raygun era policies.

what does it matter when they where built?
what matters is when they where not found
you know what amazes me? no where in U.N. documents or from Saddam him self does it say the U.S. gave him that stuff
Only from here

And I am going to say this until you stop trying to connect what events took place in the 80s with what events took place in the 90s and the early 2000s

You keep trying to say that if someone legally gets (owns) a gun in this country and kills someone with that gun, or threatens someone with that gun, because of the 2ND amendment we cannot prosecute him
We provided the avenue for that person to purchase that gun
It was his/her responsibility to use it with-in the laws

 

[JRK]

We see another difference in the way the 2 men govern.
Saddam was a man of terror
he was caught
he was tried by his own people
he was hung
and no-one doubts that Saddam is dead

When a major victory or a lead 9-11 conspirator was caught or killed, we did not have the president @ the world trade center playing political games

Obama decides we the people who are trying to kill us are more of a concern to him than bringing closure to this event for the American people who want to see the documentation I am not one of them) by sealing those documents (pictures of OBL dead)
But takes to the trade center to brag on it.

Good for you W and Clinton both for not going

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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

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.''

You got the answers about the 1980's because that is when the WMD(you keep bringing up) found in Iraq were built.

The invasion was a success. Securing and occupying the country has been a failure in that it was never secured, and a violent Civil war broke out. Yes the Occupiers are responsible for keeping order in the occupied lands. Mostly to me it is a failure because of the 4000+ soldiers we have lost there.

Funny to me is your relying on UNSC resolutions to condemn Saddam, yet fail to recognize the significance of the UNSC not approving military action in it final resolution to Saddam 1441.

The technology Saddam was able to aquire after Reagan took Iraq off the Supporting terrorist list allow him to build Chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore he was also able to start a clandestine Manhatten Project style Nuclear program thanks to Raygun era policies.

what does it matter when they where built?
what matters is when they where not found
you know what amazes me? no where in U.N. documents or from Saddam him self does it say the U.S. gave him that stuffOnly from here

And I am going to say this until you stop trying to connect what events took place in the 80s with what events took place in the 90s and the early 2000s

You keep trying to say that if someone legally gets (owns) a gun in this country and kills someone with that gun, or threatens someone with that gun, because of the 2ND amendment we cannot prosecute him
We provided the avenue for that person to purchase that gun
It was his/her responsibility to use it with-in the laws

It matters because the claim was that the Iraqi regime was actively producing and stockpiling large quantities of chemcial, and biological weapons.

History is relevent

Because they were taken off the Nations who suport Terrorist list, Iraq was then able to purchased equipement from the US and our allies. Many of the items they bought were duel use in that they could be easily converted to military use. Chemcials came from German companies. US companies supplied them with Biological agents. What the US gave Saddam was billions gaurenteed loans. France sold shit to him. England sold shit to him. Hell all our allied could and many did.

 

[JRK]

You got the answers about the 1980's because that is when the WMD(you keep bringing up) found in Iraq were built.

The invasion was a success. Securing and occupying the country has been a failure in that it was never secured, and a violent Civil war broke out. Yes the Occupiers are responsible for keeping order in the occupied lands. Mostly to me it is a failure because of the 4000+ soldiers we have lost there.

Funny to me is your relying on UNSC resolutions to condemn Saddam, yet fail to recognize the significance of the UNSC not approving military action in it final resolution to Saddam 1441.

The technology Saddam was able to aquire after Reagan took Iraq off the Supporting terrorist list allow him to build Chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore he was also able to start a clandestine Manhatten Project style Nuclear program thanks to Raygun era policies.

what does it matter when they where built?
what matters is when they where not found
you know what amazes me? no where in U.N. documents or from Saddam him self does it say the U.S. gave him that stuffOnly from here

And I am going to say this until you stop trying to connect what events took place in the 80s with what events took place in the 90s and the early 2000s

You keep trying to say that if someone legally gets (owns) a gun in this country and kills someone with that gun, or threatens someone with that gun, because of the 2ND amendment we cannot prosecute him
We provided the avenue for that person to purchase that gun
It was his/her responsibility to use it with-in the laws

It matters because the claim was that the Iraqi regime was actively producing and stockpiling large quantities of chemcial, and biological weapons.

History is relevent

Because they were taken off the Nations who suport Terrorist list, Iraq was then able to purchased equipement from the US and our allies. Many of the items they bought were duel use in that they could be easily converted to military use. Chemcials came from German companies. US companies supplied them with Biological agents. What the US gave Saddam was billions gaurenteed loans. France sold shit to him. England sold shit to him. Hell all our allied could and many did.

This is amazing
Iraq Connection Helped U.S. Find Bin Laden
In 2004, about six weeks after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Kurdish police nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative named Hassan Ghul in a town near the Iranian border. It wasn't long before Ghul was telling CIA interrogators about one of the organization's couriers, who used the nom-de-guerre of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

"Hassan Ghul was the linchpin" in finding and killing Osama bin Laden, a U.S. official told The Associated Press on Monday. Ghul told the United States that the Kuwaiti-born Pakistani now known to have been Sheikh Abu Ahmed, who was killed along with the terrorist chieftain he served on Monday by U.S. Navy SEALs, was a crucial figure within al-Qaida.

"Al-Kuwaiti" was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced the captured Khalid Shiekh Mohammed as al-Qaida operational commander, Ghul told the CIA.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Iraq Connection Helped U.S. Find Bin Laden
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[Unkotare]

Qaddafi can now tell you how successful the Iraq war was. And Mubarak, and Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, and...

 

[Patrick2]

The iraq war was a spectacular success by almost any measure, if obama doesn't find a way to screw it up at the last moment, and of course with President Amateur, that's a big "if".

The iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators since world war two: a person who attacked at least three neighboring countries, who certainly would have had nukes by now, who launched the first gas attack since world war one, and the first IRBM attack since world war two. Saddam maintained rape and torture rooms all over Iraq. He's estimated to have killed 600,000 iraqi political prisoners. He had prisoners tied together in fields and then had grenades tossed at them. He had had people killed by being locked in rooms with attack dogs. He once had a general who displeased him tossed into an industrial sized paper shredder.

His wars of aggression against iran and kuwait resulted in the deaths of about one million people.

He spent the food for oil money intended to feed iraqi children during the boycott of iraq on armanents and more palaces for himself while children starved.

The person who decries the overthrow of this savage has no soul.

In his place, the US set up a constitutional democracy, the first arab one and the second in the middle east.

 

[Unkotare]

And the effect of replacing one of the biggest sources of unrest, radicalization, brutality and insecurity in the ME with a Democratic government has had many benefits as we see today in Libya.

 

[rdean]

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of
legislation:
A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

----------------------------------------------------

Where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right, "IRAN!"

------------------------------------------------------

Houzan Mahmoud: Do Iraq's Women Miss Saddam?

Published Sunday, April 04, 2010

Women's advocacy groups say the US courtship of conservative Islamists curtailed women's rights.

-----------------------------

Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

----------------------------------

Everything Republicans touch always turn to shit. It's because they start off on a foundation of lies. Democrats being "tricked" into support, isn't real support. Remember, Republicans lied to the entire world at the United Nations.

Now women are in burkas. Gays are murdered (although for many Republicans, that could be a "silver lining")

This is what voting Republicans into office leads to. They put Bible school graduates in the Justice Department. They made corporations people, enabling Hugo Chavez to influence our elections, they put people into dangerous trailers after Katrina, they brought down the economy. They sent our soldiers to Iraq in old and rusty equipment. They made billions and billions off Iraq (so I guess that makes all the deaths worth it).

Is there anything they (we want him to fail) won't do? Something too low? Just one thing we can name?

 

[Contumacious]

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

Why would anyone be retarded enough to continue to claim the iraqi war was a success?

The US has no Constitutional authority to invade a foreign country to assist Israel;

Bush II murdered more Iraqis that Saddam;

Women had more rights while Saddam was in power;

Bush II succeeded in placing radical Shiites who are affiliated with Iran in power

So STFU until you know what the fuck you are talking about.

.

 

[JRK]

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

Why would anyone be retarded enough to continue to claim the iraqi war was a success?

The US has no Constitutional authority to invade a foreign country to assist Israel;

Bush II murdered more Iraqis that Saddam;

Women had more rights while Saddam was in power;

Bush II succeeded in placing radical Shiites who are affiliated with Iran in power

So STFU until you know what the fuck you are talking about.

.

what do you mean?
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GWB11 Killed no-one and if Saddam does the right thing no-one dies
If anyone has no idea what there talking about its you

 

[georgephillip]

Who should pay for the "success" of the Iraq War?

"While the United States focuses on its budget problems and the costs of the war, it is important to remember the price that Iraq and Iraqis have paid. It's not just the hundreds of thousands who have died during and after the war. There are millions of refugees. The country's infrastructure has been ruined. Corruption is flourishing..."

The Ongoing Costs of the Iraq War | FPIF

 

[editec]

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

Because we're STILL THERE.

 

[G.T.]

Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.

"stabilized?>"

How can you claim it's stabilized when we're still 40K + strong there? Bueller? Bueller?

A sharia law country with a foreign occupying police force is considered "stabilized?" Grow up, dude.

 

[JRK]

Who should pay for the "success" of the Iraq War?

"While the United States focuses on its budget problems and the costs of the war, it is important to remember the price that Iraq and Iraqis have paid. It's not just the hundreds of thousands who have died during and after the war. There are millions of refugees. The country's infrastructure has been ruined. Corruption is flourishing..."

The Ongoing Costs of the Iraq War | FPIF

The Iraqis?
do you have any links to back up your claims on lives lost?
and refugees?
Saddam had a choice

 

[JRK]

Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.

"stabilized?>"

How can you claim it's stabilized when we're still 40K + strong there? Bueller? Bueller?

A sharia law country with a foreign occupying police force is considered "stabilized?" Grow up, dude.

your calling me stupid but yet your respond to my threads
what does that make you?
1) remove Saddam: done
2) allow a democratic government to take its place: done
3) rid the country of WMDs: done
4) Kill as many terrorist as Possible: done

what more was we suppose to do?

 

[G.T.]

Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.

"stabilized?>"

How can you claim it's stabilized when we're still 40K + strong there? Bueller? Bueller?

A sharia law country with a foreign occupying police force is considered "stabilized?" Grow up, dude.

your calling me stupid but yet your respond to my threads
what does that make you?
1) remove Saddam: done
2) allow a democratic government to take its place: done
3) rid the country of WMDs: done
4) Kill as many terrorist as Possible: done

what more was we suppose to do?

Is it paid for / could we afford it? NO.
Did it change life here, for Americans, for the better? NO. People all across the Country have lost loved ones and currently MISS loved ones because of the extended and multiple deployments. Missed their kids' birthdays, Christmasses, etc.

Is it stabilized, or are we there policing it with 40, 000+ for our health? Gee, that's a tough one.

Democracy? You call Sharia law democracy?

 

[JRK]

As far as WMDs go, these outdated yet potentially hazardous munitions found were suppose to have been destroyed
The argument of "no WMDS is not a pretty with a bow and ribbon argument
The bottom line is these munitions were suppose to have been destroyed. Saddam was lying about these
how many others we never found or had been moved were there?
it odes not matter now

Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

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

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of

 

[editec]

Funny thread. JRK never gets tired of making stupid, ill informed threads.

"stabilized?>"

How can you claim it's stabilized when we're still 40K + strong there? Bueller? Bueller?

A sharia law country with a foreign occupying police force is considered "stabilized?" Grow up, dude.

your calling me stupid but yet your respond to my threads
what does that make you?
1) remove Saddam: done
2) allow a democratic government to take its place: done
3) rid the country of WMDs: done
4) Kill as many terrorist as Possible: done

what more was we suppose to do?

We WERE supposed to LEAVE.

We're still there.

Ergo, we have as yet FAILED to accomplish the original mission.