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

Except given enough time, it always becomes our problem. They all "go rogue" or become liabilities to our credibility and prestige soon enough.

Friendly dictators just mean we are putting off the inevitable. There is really no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Peacetime kills them from the inside. Without some kind of outside conflict to keep its internal repression/military forces occupied, they start looting the system or grabbing power for themselves.

I think we should support the ouster of dictatorships where it is most feasible with our resources. Some require more effort than others. Above all, the US should really stand behind the democratization of the world. Ultimately it is a worthy goal of a superpower and pays off dividends. A more democratic world is ultimately a less violent one. Tacit acceptance of dictatorship is just being lazy or taking the most expedient action. It seldom works well for us.

Saddam had over 10 years to do the right thing
He was told to rid his country of WMDs long before the 500 munitions were found in 04 that people say were "no good"
There were not in that shape in the 90s when he told the world he had none left. there is also evidence many of those munitions were moved
After 9-11 Saddam had 2 choices
He chose the later
his own people hung him for it


First, here are the spin-free conclusions of the Duelfer report with regrd to weapons of mass destruction:

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991, following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

***

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

***

"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent."

***

"...ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes... [T]here appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level [from the mid-1990s forward]."

***

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."


Unfortunately, beyond that, the spinning starts.

The Iraq Papers #10: The Iraq Survey Group & Its Conclusions

Really?
So Saddam had nothing to do with the first trade center bombing
Military retaliation from Baghdad was the main administration concern following Saturday's strike on Iraq. Yet U.S. officials should start thinking seriously about the question of retaliation through terror. It is quite possible, for example, that there was a connection between Saddam and recent attempts to blow up Manhattan. It is quite possible that New York's terror is Saddam's revenge.

Speculation about the responsibility for last week's bombing plot and the earlier World Trade Center bombing has focused on Iran, Sudan, and the fundamentalist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Much energy has been spent linking the terror to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet Saddam, a secular tyrant, is also suspect.

Information already in the public domain allows us to make this case. Start with the fact that the most important person in the Trade Center bombing is an Iraqi, Ramzi Ahmad Yusuf. Known in New York as Rashid, Mr. Yusuf has 11 aliases. The U.S. press has reported that he left Iraq in early 1992, transiting Jordan to Pakistan. He entered New York in early September on Pakistan Airways. Mr. Yusuf, traveling on his Iraqi passport, passed through immigration by requesting asylum. The FBI claims the plot began in August, while Mr. Yusuf was abroad.

Ordering Chemicals
Mr. Yusuf soon became the roomate of Mohammed Salameh, the naive Palestinian who repeatedly returned to the van rental agency for his deposit. Passionate, but not bright, Mr. Salameh would appear a ready dupe to an intelligence operative. In trial documents, an Iraqi-American, Musaab Yassin, has stated that he had known Mr. Salameh two years. Mr. Yassin moved into Mr. Salameh's apartment in September 1992, and Mr. Salameh moved out. Mr. Yassin's younger brother, Abboud, lived with him. An Arab who knows Musaab Yassin, like Mr. Yusuf, came to the U.S. in the fall of 1992, seeking medical treatment.

In late November, Mr. Yusuf allegedly ordered chemicals for the bomb and Mr. Salameh rented a locker to store them. The plot was underway. In early February, Mr. Salameh notified his landlord that he and Mr. Yusuf would leave at month's end. On Feb. 26 the World Trade Center was bombed. Messrs. Salameh and Yusuf vacated their apartment two days later.

Mr. Salameh was arrested March 4. Musaab Yassin returned home that day to find the FBI searching his apartment, while Abboud had been taken for questioning. Abboud Yassin told the FBI that he taught Mr. Salameh to drive the van that carried the bomb, that he accompanied Mr. Salameh to an apartment later identified as the bomb's testing ground; and Abboud Yassin's information helped lead the FBI to the locker where the chemicals had been stored. The U.S. press reports that Abboud Yassin then returned to Iraq, as did Mr. Yusuf. The New York Times reported that Arabs who knew Mr. Salameh and the second Palestinian arrested, Nidal Ayyad, said that the two had "close ties with two Iraqis, one of whom they say was named Rashid, but both of whom have since disappeared."

This information, although sketchy, indicates Iraqi activity. If Mr. Yusuf, the key figure, had worked for Iran, Tehran would not have let him return to Iraq. Given the totalitarian nature of the Iraqi regime, even Abboud Yassin's return to Iraq is significant. An innocent man would, arguably, have chosen to stay in the U.S. - he would have a better chance of a fair hearing in a U.S. court than before an Iraqi intelligence officer. If Abboud Yassin was involved in the bombing - but was not acting under Baghdad's instruction - then it was even more imprudent for him to return to Iraq. Mr. Yusuf and Abboud Yassin could have gone to Afghanistan, where they would not have exposed themselves to the potentially fatal suspicions of Baghdad's intelligence agencies.

That two men involved came from Iraq and returned there is reason enough to consider an Iraqi role in the World Trade Center bombing. What other possible evidence is there? It has been reported that the bombing suspects received money from abroad: up to $100,000 from Germany, Iran, and "another Middle Eastern Country." That country is probably Jordan, shielded by U.S. authorities who continue protecting Amman for the sake of the "peace process." Without knowing how much money came from each country, though, it is hard to exclude Iraq. Last but not least, it is worth noting that the February bombing occurred on the second anniversary of Kuwait's liberation.

What about last week's arrests? The FBI arrested five Sudanese and three others as it broke up a second bombing plot. The conspirators' first target was the United Nations' headquarters. Other targets were added, including FBI headquarters in New York. Additionally, four assassinations were planned, including that of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Like the Trade Center bombing, much of this operation was amateurish. The conspiracy instigator, Siddiq Ibrahim Ali, had a plan to get a car into the FBI building, but it was amateurish (he proposed shooting the guards). Professional terrorists divide their organizations into small cells, each devoted to specific tasks. These planners used a large group in which every participant was known to the others, so that the entire plot could quickly unravel once one member was caught. Yet, like the World Trade Center bombing, this was audacious. Had it suceeded, thousands could have died.

It's important to note that both the Trade Center bombing and the later plot represent something new - at least in the West. Saddam, however, commits that kind of carnage on a daily basis. Two of the nations thought to be behind the second plot are not ideal suspects. Khartoum is suspected, because Sudanese played a big role in the plot. With Iran, Sudanese has been involved in a violent campaign to overthrow secular governments in North Africa, including Mr. Boutros-Ghali's own government in Cairo. But Khartoum has not sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets. That it should suddenly support potentially the most devastating anti-American attack ever makes little sense. A separate question though is whether Sudanese diplomats could be bought. This is possible, since Khartoum is broke, and months behind in paying its diplomats. Iranian sponsorship of the plot is also unlikely. Iran has no big quarrel with the U.N. - it benefits from the U.N.'s disarmament of Iraq. The U.N. is not the obvious target for Muslim extremists. Their quarrel is with the U.S. They could have easily chosen an American target. Explaining why fundamentalists would bomb the U.N. is possible, but the explanation is strained - that they see the U.N. as a U.S. surrogate; that their violence is caused by anger at many issues involving the U.N., including Bosnia, Somalia and the Palestinians. The Trade Center suspects issued a set of demands that the U.S. stop aiding Israel and stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Saddam by contrast has every reason to attack the U.N. Saddam also hates Egypt's Mubarak and wants him dead, no less than he wanted George Bush dead. Baghdad Radio threatened Mr. Bush personally during the Gulf War and Mubarak as well, "Does he (Mubarak) think that the crime he committed against the people of Iraq will go unpunished?... Prepare yourself for it and shiver at the thought."

More To Come

So Saddam did not kick out the UN inspectors, never?

And the 500 munitions that were found were ok to have kept and that at no time did the UN mean for those to be destroyed, they were iin the "shape" they were found to be in sense they day they were assembled

And a late addition to this report
After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home – buried in the front yard – awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed. He said, "I had to maintain the program to the bitter end." In his book, "The Bomb in My Garden", the Iraqi physicist explains that his nuclear stash was the key that could have unlocked and restarted Saddam's bombmaking program

theres more
On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas", Kay would say in a later interview.[102] In other cases, Iraq had simply lied to the UN in its weapons programs.[103] The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had at this point cost $300 million and was projected to cost around $600 million more.


ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100 km to 150–180 km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF – one was shot down and one hit Kuwait."
Another notable statement is the following:
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

om, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.[
On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[116]

all of these where UN sanction busts
the very reason Saddam had to go
Like everything it depends on who tells the story as to the outcome
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
saddam moved WMDs from iraq - Bing Videos
Iraq Official: Saddam Moved WMD to Syria
 
Has anyone ever realized that the reasons we went to Iraq were not seen as important once we actually went there. It was the fundamental flaw of the anti-war movement. The whole "Bush lied" thing stopped being relevant after 2003. It didn't help anyone figure out what to do next.

The WMD's argument is pretty flimsy. At most, Saddam made use of 9/11 to give a big middle finger to the US, but not much else. But Saddam was the easiest target if we wanted to democratize an Arab nation by force. Bush wanted a huge US military presence in the region not beholden to a native government to be the giant gorilla in the room to prompt some form of democratization in the Middle East out of our putative allies.

It was heavy handed as hell, but GWB understood the nature of Islamicism and its roots with these "stable dictators". Al Queda's Islamicist rhetoric didn't start with Osama. It started with the Saudi government. Osama just appropriated it for himself.
 
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

1.Torture, murder, rape of innocent chained & detained women & children.
2.Thousands slaughtered, mained and radiated with nuclear poison.
3.Infrastructure destroyed and a country laid in waste.
4.US troops slaughtered & maimed, psych cases, ongoing medical care & benefits for a lifetime.
5.Gasoline prices are higher & trillions unpaid and left for our children.

Simply put, you don't win wars and you can never call them a success.
 
Iraq did all that stuff years..years..before they were invaded.

They were pretty much pacified when Bush decided to knock over that country.

Pacified? Lol tell that to the Kurds and Shite that Saddam was still oppressing and yes killing even in 2003. Pretty Much pacified? that is funny.

LINK, puhleeese.

And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991),


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.
Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........Do you not remember Stormin' Norman telling them exactly what they would agree too, or else?

It was carried live. You surely couldn't have missed it.

Christ, do you people ever research anything, or know what the fuck you're talking about?
 
Pacified? Lol tell that to the Kurds and Shite that Saddam was still oppressing and yes killing even in 2003. Pretty Much pacified? that is funny.

LINK, puhleeese.

And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991),


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.
Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........Do you not remember Stormin' Norman telling them exactly what they would agree too, or else?

It was carried live. You surely couldn't have missed it.

Christ, do you people ever research anything, or know what the fuck you're talking about?

BS. The no fly zones were instituted by France the UK and the US after the war ended in addition the UN Sanctions after the Kurdish revolt was brutally suppressed by Saddam. France eventually dropped out in 98.

BTW they didn't stop voilence on the ground from Saddams forces in either the north or the south.
 
I will take that as a 'no'.

As will I.

Do you remember the old commercials? "If you don't get help and Charter, just fucking end it all!"

LOL

In all seriousness, I only mock you because you're stupid.

And if what you thought meant anything, I might just care.

Sorry, I do not watch television and have no reference as to what you were asking.
 
Pacified? Lol tell that to the Kurds and Shite that Saddam was still oppressing and yes killing even in 2003. Pretty Much pacified? that is funny.

LINK, puhleeese.

And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991),


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.
Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........

Excuse me slick

But I am still trying to find out why the fuck Iraq was invaded.....why was it required that they surrender their sovereignty to War Criminal Bush?


.
 
Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war.



Liberals love their talking points so much they just can't let them go no matter how long after the fact. The whole "lies!" BS is a failed bit of partisan propoganda that is by now like an old piece of chewing gum.

Prove it. Prove that Bush administration officials did not give false information as their reasoning for the invasion. Go ahead and try it. You can't.
 
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

1.Torture, murder, rape of innocent chained & detained women & children.
2.Thousands slaughtered, mained and radiated with nuclear poison.
3.Infrastructure destroyed and a country laid in waste.
4.US troops slaughtered & maimed, psych cases, ongoing medical care & benefits for a lifetime.
5.Gasoline prices are higher & trillions unpaid and left for our children.

Simply put, you don't win wars and you can never call them a success.

1) what are you babbling about?
2) what are you babbling about?
3) this happens in war. there infrastructure is coming around
4) US troops have had there losses, this does occur in war, and with respect they all volunteered for it, that is something you would know nothing about and to be honest all but a few are not seeking your help with this matter, TRY AND SHOW SOME RESPECT
5) That would be an issue you need to take up with our president. 2009 Jan it was around 1.70 a gallon
 
LINK, puhleeese.



Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991),


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.
Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........

Excuse me slick

But I am still trying to find out why the fuck Iraq was invaded.....why was it required that they surrender their sovereignty to War Criminal Bush?


.

we invaded Iraq because it was the will of the people to invade Iraq
we invade Iraq because congress agreed we needed to invade Iraq
Now you an call GWB a criminal if you like
but its alie and most people in this country agree and agreed with him and the reasons we went
 
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

The only thing that was done was killing saddam. And arent you the doofus from the other thread that said we were there for weapons of mass destruction? Something that wasn't there? And what republic? it's a series of splinter groups now.:poop:
 
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

The only thing that was done was killing saddam. And arent you the doofus from the other thread that said we were there for weapons of mass destruction? Something that wasn't there? And what republic? it's a series of splinter groups now.:poop:
You're not exactly the brightest light on the ol' Xmas tree o' life, eh?

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


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

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

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

First, you're a dumbass. How in the fuck was the war on saddam? Also dipshit I was there in 91 so I know based on your stupid comment, that you have absolutely NO idea why we were there. And finally Georgie wasn't? That jackass said jesus talked to him and led him into Iraq.:anj_stfu:
 
Pacified? Lol tell that to the Kurds and Shite that Saddam was still oppressing and yes killing even in 2003. Pretty Much pacified? that is funny.

LINK, puhleeese.

And he was still Shooting at US planes just Months before we invaded. Planes enforcing a UN no fly zone put up to STOP HIM from killing his own people.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir, why was the US enforcing a UN no fly zone. Why can't the UN enforce its own UNSCR ?!?!?!?!


Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991),


Iraq: Claim vs. Reality by Rep. Ron Paul

.
Fuck the UN.

Saddaam AGREED to the no-fly zone when they surrendered........Do you not remember Stormin' Norman telling them exactly what they would agree too, or else?

It was carried live. You surely couldn't have missed it.

Christ, do you people ever research anything, or know what the fuck you're talking about?

We were not empowered by the UN to conduct war against Saddam, Jester. That is a flat fact of internation law. Why do you think Bush and his buddies don't travel overseas since Rumsfeld fled Europe in advance of a war crimes warrant and arrest? They can't travel, Jester, because in the rest of the civilized war they are generally considered as war criminals.
 
Thousands of American lives lost over a war based on a lie, and you think that vindicates BUSH? Never mind the lies that the Bush administration told that lead to the war.



Liberals love their talking points so much they just can't let them go no matter how long after the fact. The whole "lies!" BS is a failed bit of partisan propoganda that is by now like an old piece of chewing gum.

Prove it. Prove that Bush administration officials did not give false information as their reasoning for the invasion. Go ahead and try it. You can't.

Here's what that asshat can do, go to lawrence o'donnel's website and fin the condi rice interview...then come back with the bush lies. She admitted to them then tried to justify them.:poop:
 

Forum List

Back
Top