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

[JRK]

But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.



What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?



No he didn't, he said "the matter is up to the United Nations". (From your link)



What Congress actually said, "..if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."

Neither case is true as previously illustrated.



Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.

Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
but if I must, it changed the game for ever
they chosse to ignore nothing

Blix made the statement of the 6500 munitions and the anthrax and the other "stuff" was made on jan of 2003

you keep going past tense as though Blix made those commentd your using prior to 1/2003
he was covering his ass

my threads are not my information
they are from the US senate
Blix and the Un
the DOD

there not mine, I am sorry those facts hurt your agenda
you got a problem with that, take it up with google
go away, your wasting my time and energy unless you can find a link that was made after 1/2003 and before 3-2003 that blix states his 1-2003 where in correct
and one that the DOD states there statements to congress in 2006 where in-correct
and finally one in which the US congress went back on there resolution 10/2002 granting the US the power to attack Saddam

you have reached a point in whish your reality has found a place in which no matter how hard you will try, you cannot change these facts

your spinning the events that in realiy are events that took place from 10-2002 thru 3-2003
events I had little to do with except who I voted for

You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. Try to rebut the information in my posts.

For example, did Bush state ""the matter is up to the United Nations" or not?

What do you think he meant by that in the context of the article in the link in your thread that quotes his White House making this statement?

Let's start with an easy one and work into it.

I'll wait for you to answer before we go on, ok?

I keep re peating the same stuff because its the truth
why would I rebutted information that has nothing to do with those events that began on October of 2002 and with the exception of the DODs presentation to congress in 2006, ended on March of 2003
GWB was correct in his statement that It was the UNs place to end that mess
It was also his place to give them an end date
It was also hisplace to tell the world thru congress in 2002, October, that tiime was running out
What do you think after Blix made those comments on or about 1/26/2003 about the missing WMDS, anthrax, etc.... he was going to do?

Saddam opens the doors up
allows flyovers with the U-2
produces the 6500 munitions HE said HE had
Anthrax
etc...
10/2002 is not needed

why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?

 

[Nic_Driver]

Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.

Dude you keep ignoring the simple facts
9-11? we got that one wrong, we found that out after we invaded, no-one made that claim and could back it up prior to 9-11
and as far as what did 9-11 have to do wih it? your smarter than that
but if I must, it changed the game for ever
they chosse to ignore nothing

Blix made the statement of the 6500 munitions and the anthrax and the other "stuff" was made on jan of 2003

you keep going past tense as though Blix made those commentd your using prior to 1/2003
he was covering his ass

my threads are not my information
they are from the US senate
Blix and the Un
the DOD

there not mine, I am sorry those facts hurt your agenda
you got a problem with that, take it up with google
go away, your wasting my time and energy unless you can find a link that was made after 1/2003 and before 3-2003 that blix states his 1-2003 where in correct
and one that the DOD states there statements to congress in 2006 where in-correct
and finally one in which the US congress went back on there resolution 10/2002 granting the US the power to attack Saddam

you have reached a point in whish your reality has found a place in which no matter how hard you will try, you cannot change these facts

your spinning the events that in realiy are events that took place from 10-2002 thru 3-2003
events I had little to do with except who I voted for

You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. Try to rebut the information in my posts.

For example, did Bush state ""the matter is up to the United Nations" or not?

What do you think he meant by that in the context of the article in the link in your thread that quotes his White House making this statement?

Let's start with an easy one and work into it.

I'll wait for you to answer before we go on, ok?

I keep re peating the same stuff because its the truth
why would I rebutted information that has nothing to do with those events that began on October of 2002 and with the exception of the DODs presentation to congress in 2006, ended on March of 2003
GWB was correct in his statement that It was the UNs place to end that mess
It was also his place to give them an end date
It was also hisplace to tell the world thru congress in 2002, October, that tiime was running out
What do you think after Blix made those comments on or about 1/26/2003 about the missing WMDS, anthrax, etc.... he was going to do?

Saddam opens the doors up
allows flyovers with the U-2
produces the 6500 munitions HE said HE had
Anthrax
etc...
10/2002 is not needed

why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?

Ok, your intellectual dishonesty is glaringly apparent now. I've debated on your terms and rebutted every "point" you keep making over and over and instead of rebutting my rebuttal, you simply repeat the same thing over again.

So what do you think Bush meant when he said it was up to the UN?

What do you think Blix meant when he said the invasion was illegal because he hadn't finished inspecting when Bush kicked him out?

Do you see how that makes any claim you make from Blix void?

Do you have a direct rebuttal to anything or are you so simple that you've only room in your head for the same couple of talking points?

 

[Unkotare]

why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?

You know why.

 

[JRK]

You keep repeating the same stuff over and over again. Try to rebut the information in my posts.

For example, did Bush state ""the matter is up to the United Nations" or not?

What do you think he meant by that in the context of the article in the link in your thread that quotes his White House making this statement?

Let's start with an easy one and work into it.

I'll wait for you to answer before we go on, ok?

I keep re peating the same stuff because its the truth
why would I rebutted information that has nothing to do with those events that began on October of 2002 and with the exception of the DODs presentation to congress in 2006, ended on March of 2003
GWB was correct in his statement that It was the UNs place to end that mess
It was also his place to give them an end date
It was also hisplace to tell the world thru congress in 2002, October, that tiime was running out
What do you think after Blix made those comments on or about 1/26/2003 about the missing WMDS, anthrax, etc.... he was going to do?

Saddam opens the doors up
allows flyovers with the U-2
produces the 6500 munitions HE said HE had
Anthrax
etc...
10/2002 is not needed

why do you defend Saddam to blame Bush?

Ok, your intellectual dishonesty is glaringly apparent now. I've debated on your terms and rebutted every "point" you keep making over and over and instead of rebutting my rebuttal, you simply repeat the same thing over again.

So what do you think Bush meant when he said it was up to the UN?

What do you think Blix meant when he said the invasion was illegal because he hadn't finished inspecting when Bush kicked him out?

Do you see how that makes any claim you make from Blix void?

Do you have a direct rebuttal to anything or are you so simple that you've only room in your head for the same couple of talking points?

As a liberal you waited a long time before you made it personal
I am not stupid
I go over the same events because its all there is to it
Blix failed
Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not
I make no comments from Blix should bevoided, why would I do that
his statements on or about 1-26-2003 sent a very chilling message to Bush and his people, along with this country

Dude you not suppoting the Iraqi invasion is your right
claiming a statement or an event that took place afetr 3/2003 had anything to do with Bushs choice, legal,binding choice to invade Iraq except the DODs place in these events in 2006 mean nothing

you will not get because your beliefs will not allow you
you have been told there is more to this than
1) Saddam failed to comply with Un rsolutions
2) congress states if he continues, attack
3) Blix states he is continuing to ignore the UN resolution, not in exact words, but thru missing Anthrax, WMDs stc... its very clearas he says, there not taking it serious

there is nothing more to this than that
did we find yellow cake?
nope
did we find the anthrax?
'nope

Saddam said he had one but not the other
which was the truth?

 

[freedombecki]

1) the UN had years to resolve this issue

But the UN decideds when they are finished inspecting, even the Bush White House admitted this, your link proved that.

2) 9-11

What do Saddam and 9/11 have to do with each other?
No he didn't, he said "the matter is up to the United Nations". (From your link)
What Congress actually said, "..if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions."
Neither case is true as previously illustrated.


Here's what Blix actually said.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - CNN
6) 3/2003 there time run out

The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said.
Did you want to try again? You're thread is an epic failure.

Your link was to Wolf (Clintondrool) Blitzer? Mr. Blitzer salivated 55 times between the sweats every day for 8 years while Clinton was President. Oh, bwahahaha! You're linking a Clintonista drooler? <mopping milk off monitor>
Thanks, Nic-Driver. I haven't laughed that hard in a coupla weeks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
THIS IS FROM THE DOD WHILE GWB WAS THE PRESIDENT IN 2006
THIS WAS MADE IN THE SENATE, NOT THE EMPRE STATE BUILDING

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

JRK continues to lie, and I have sent this on to several friends at the U. They use his and others' deliberate falsifications in their classes as what students should look for in the coming elections. Several thousand of us do this informally, collecting the rampant lies of the hard left and the hard right and send them to where they can be best exposed.

 

[NoNukes]

One thing that is being ignored on this thread, Bush invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He once told filmmaker David O.Russell that 'if he became President' in would probably go into Iraq and finish the job that his father started.

 

[JRK]

Another example of misinformation from the apologists. The threat Bush used was from nuclear weapons and that's the lie he used to justify invasion, not some mustard gas that Blix was in the process of finding when Bush stopped him from his UN mandated job to illegally invade.

there is no mis information here
your out of lies bud
this is the as far as you go, I hate being dis respectful
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

JRK continues to lie, and I have sent this on to several friends at the U. They use his and others' deliberate falsifications in their classes as what students should look for in the coming elections. Several thousand of us do this informally, collecting the rampant lies of the hard left and the hard right and send them to where they can be best exposed.

lie?
I have offerd nothing but links to accurate information
how could I be lying?
October 2002 senate approves the attack on Saddam
Jan 2003 Blix reports that there is anthrax missing and 6500 munitions
3/2003 we invade
2006 the DOD goes before congress and tells congress they have found over 500 munitions that meet that criteria of WMDs
and you call me a liar?

anthrax
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph

WMDs, DOD US senate
These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

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

us senate vote 2002
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

you owe me an apology
One should use caution calling one a liar in a public realm as this
dude there is nothing more to this than this

Congress gives the red light 02
Blix reports the exact thing congress gives the ok
03
we invade
03
Proof that Saddam had not meet UN resolution to US senate 2006

These are not my words, likns nor or they my events

jake you owe mean apology
NOW

 

[JakeStarkey]

The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of. Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence. He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.

This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.

 

[JRK]

The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of. Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence. He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.

This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.

Jake there is nothing silly about this
younowe me an apology
and distributing the facts that I have put before you will ony make you more liable than you are
use caution threating people Jake
youe aslo going on my ignore list

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK believes his distortions of truth to reach an invalid conclusion for propaganda purposes.

I threatened no one at all, but JRK needs to realizes that choices have consquences.

JRK should consider apologizing to the entire board for what he does in this thread.

 

[JRK]

JRK believes his distortions of truth to reach an invalid conclusion for propaganda purposes.

I threatened no one at all, but JRK needs to realizes that choices have consquences.

JRK should consider apologizing to the entire board for what he does in this thread.

goodbye Jake
good luck with your life
I feel sorry for you

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your right, JRK, but most of us are feeling sorry that you can't stay and learn. Best of luck on your journey.

 

[JRK]

what part of ignore dont you understand

 

[Rinata]

The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of. Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence. He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.

This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.

Jake there is nothing silly about this
younowe me an apology
and distributing the facts that I have put before you will ony make you more liable than you are
use caution threating people Jake
youe aslo going on my ignore list

Correct your errors before you submit your post. It makes you look immature and not very credible.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Blix failed
Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not

Neither does Bush but Bush was clear when said it was up to Blix (the UN)...then Bush kicked Blix and the other inspectors out, forced them to stop looking for WMD's and then Bush invaded.

Now you're using the fact that Blix was unsuccessful in his search as some sort of proof of something when Bush is the one that ended the inspections and failed to fulfill the UN Mandate prior to his invasion of Iraq.

Do you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?

 

[Unkotare]

The admin went to war looking for piles of WMDs, primarily nukes or the makings there of. Bush admitted that he went to war on bad intelligence. He admitted that if he had good intelligence, he would not have gone to war.

This is why folks like JRK's silliness is distributed far and wide.

You clearly lack the character to be honest in this discussion because your predetermined conclusions are all that matter to you. You should be ashamed.

 

[JRK]

Blix failed
Blix does not decide what is legal in this country and what is not

Neither does Bush but Bush was clear when said it was up to Blix (the UN)...then Bush kicked Blix and the other inspectors out, forced them to stop looking for WMD's and then Bush invaded.

Now you're using the fact that Blix was unsuccessful in his search as some sort of proof of something when Bush is the one that ended the inspections and failed to fulfill the UN Mandate prior to his invasion of Iraq.

Do you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?

Blix failed because of Saddam
GWB could have not been more clear
as well as the US senate
No I am not using Blixes failures, I am usinig accurate information

Saddam made those claims, not Blix
Saddam stated he had 6500 munitions
anthrax
etc....
where blix failed was his after invasion comments covering his butt instaed of blaming saddam

 

[Nic_Driver]

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk

He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."

• He said he was in favour of a second UN resolution.

• He accused the UK of becoming the "prisoner" of the American train after Lord Goldsmith "wriggled".

• He described the war as "illegal".

I thought this quote was particularly timely;

4.26pm: Asked what would have happened if there had not been an invasion in March 2003, Blix said he would have completed the work and introduced proper monitoring. Sir Lawrence Freedman asks him for alternative scenarios. He said the diplomatic route could have been backed up by force, but not 250,000 men. Such pressure might have allowed the investigations process to be concluded. Blix said one of his conclusions from the aftermath of the invasion is that anarchy can sometimes be worse than tyranny.

Bush wanted to invade so he did. It didn't matter what anyone else said he was going to invade so he did.

According to international law, you can't do that.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Blix failed because of Saddam
GWB could have not been more clear
as well as the US senate
No I am not using Blixes failures, I am usinig accurate information

How could Blix have failed when he wasn't allowed to complete?

You're not making sense.