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

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

And Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors who were uncovering more each day; that was the UN mandate...that is until Bush kicked them out of course.

The UN Resolution was for Saddam to allow inspections, and he did.

That's ruins your whole argument, do you see how it does?
 
Last edited:
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.

This has become the problem with the entire liberal movement.
Denial
Just as Obama used our money with his stimulus

All i have done is provided history
and in return what I get from the left is being told I should be ashamed

never about the subject with them
 
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.

This has become the problem with the entire liberal movement.
Denial
Just as Obama used our money with his stimulus

All i have done is provided history
and in return what I get from the left is being told I should be ashamed

never about the subject with them

Come on JRK. I've specifically rebutted your points but you simply repeat the same, now debunked, points without offering any answer to the obvious dichotomy you post.
 
JRK
Registered User
Member #28394

Blix failed

then

JRK
Registered User
Member #28394

No I am not using Blixes failures

Seriously?



Please try to make sense and stay with your argument.

There is no argument here
there is history and there is ou ignoring it
i have grown tired of this debate with you and until you provide any information that disutes history
you will be ignored
 
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.

This has become the problem with the entire liberal movement.
Denial
Just as Obama used our money with his stimulus

All i have done is provided history
and in return what I get from the left is being told I should be ashamed

never about the subject with them

Come on JRK. I've specifically rebutted your points but you simply repeat the same, now debunked, points without offering any answer to the obvious dichotomy you post.

did the senate vote in 02 to authorize the attack?
did blix state in 03 that Iraq had weapons and Chemicals that were un accounted for?
did the DOD present to congress in 06 that the 500+ munitions found in Iraq met the criteria for WMDs?

What more history is to be provided?
What have you provided that de bunks this hoistory?

adding to this would be an attempt to spin history
 
Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News

(AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday.

"It's unfortunate we have to leave now," Ueki said at the airport. "I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best."

U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.

This is an interesting quote here;

After the speech, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations dismissed the threat.

"The Iraqi side refused to accept what has been said by Bush, and this will be really the very bad solution for the whole region, for Iraq, for the United States ... and for humanity," said Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri. "This will destabilize not only the region but other parts of the world. So I think this would be a mistake, a grave mistake from the part of the American administration to launch this war against my country."

How right he was, eh JRK?

It really is too bad that Bush kicked the inspectors out and invaded unilaterally, in opposition to international law (that means illegal BTW).

Don't you think it's rather insightful of the Iraqi ambassador to see the effects of Bush's invasion so clearly? I thought it showed a level of foresight clearly lacking in the Bush administration. In my opinion, his was the most myopic administration ever.
 
Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News

(AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday.

"It's unfortunate we have to leave now," Ueki said at the airport. "I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best."

U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.

This is an interesting quote here;

After the speech, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations dismissed the threat.

"The Iraqi side refused to accept what has been said by Bush, and this will be really the very bad solution for the whole region, for Iraq, for the United States ... and for humanity," said Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri. "This will destabilize not only the region but other parts of the world. So I think this would be a mistake, a grave mistake from the part of the American administration to launch this war against my country."

How right he was, eh JRK?

It really is too bad that Bush kicked the inspectors out and invaded unilaterally, in opposition to international law (that means illegal BTW).

Don't you think it's rather insightful of the Iraqi ambassador to see the effects of Bush's invasion so clearly? I thought it showed a level of foresight clearly lacking in the Bush administration. In my opinion, his was the most myopic administration ever.

you finally got it
your opion
and I have never tried to change what your opinion is
You think we should have never invaded Iraq
Our president and those who we voted to represent us thought different

One more thing
why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?
his own people hung him for his crimes
 
did the senate vote in 02 to authorize the attack?

Ok JRK, did you want to go over each point, one at a time? It appears that when I put everything in one post you skip over points.

You originally used this link here, remember?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

The word "if" means there is at least one qualifier to the authorization to use force.

Bush ended the inspections and invaded, that means the UN didn't provide cover for his invasion nor did his invasion meet the specifics of the authorization to use force.
 
Last edited:
One more thing
why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?

Wow, you're kidding right? Who's giving Saddam a free pass on anything?

Do you even understand my argument?
 
No, there were not. ]



Do you feel like changing or qualifying that statement now?

he will not change his mind with the facts starring him right in the face
its about this country, ot GWB

There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There was NO MOBILE WEAPONS LABORATORY.

There were NO UN-MANNED AERIAL VEHICLES.

There was NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE "YELLOW CAKE URANIUM".

THERE WERE HOWEVER LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES AND GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LIES.
 
Do you feel like changing or qualifying that statement now?

he will not change his mind with the facts starring him right in the face
its about this country, ot GWB

There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There was NO MOBILE WEAPONS LABORATORY.

There were NO UN-MANNED AERIAL VEHICLES.

There was NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE "YELLOW CAKE URANIUM".

THERE WERE HOWEVER LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES AND GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LIES.

So the French, Russians and UN were liars? You're probably right...
 
you finally got it
your opion
and I have never tried to change what your opinion is
You think we should have never invaded Iraq
Our president and those who we voted to represent us thought different

What I said was it was my opinion that his was the most myopic administration ever. You try to take that and extrapolate it to fit your agenda. I never said it was my opinion they shouldn't have invaded although that's true.

I've only argued facts and you are beginning to really look silly. Take a step back and reread some of the posts, try to catch up before you really damage your image and reputation on this BB.
 
One more thing
why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?

Wow, you're kidding right? Who's giving Saddam a free pass on anything?

Do you even understand my argument?

Yes I think I do
you think we should have not invaded
that we were lied to and those lies are what we invaded on

I do not know what it is you do for a living

Information that as at best "different" has to find a breaking point
with Iraq it was Saddam his self
Blixes comments on or about 1/27/2002
Saddam claimed to have 6500 munitions
not the CIA
Blix
the UN
Powell
GWB

he claimed he had the anthrax
etc....

He allows no U2 fly-overs
he does nothing to help in resolvig these matters

your feelings on these events are your to keep and I respect that, but to ignore both sides of this story to justify them does this country no good

You also ignore the fact the 500+ munitions that were found had been there long before 2004, they were suppose to have part of those that were to be destroyedand there condition in 1994 were probably far different than in 2004
 
Yes I think I do

No, you don't.

I'm countering your argument(s) directly, providing direct rebuttals to each point and I’m still waiting for your response to my latest rebuttal.

Try to stay on topic please
 
he does nothing to help in resolvig these matters

I assume you're talking about Saddam in this quote, correct?

Saddam allowed inspectors in and gave them access to every site for which they requested access. Bush ended inspections prematurely.

This historical fact destroys your argument, do you see that JRK?
 
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'."

Blix said Saddam was increasingly cooperative while the Bush administration was dismissing the usefulness of the inspections.

Why would you take the word of the Bush administration over the actual inspector when the question surrounds Saddam’s cooperation? Bush wasn't there and his administration stated in no uncertain terms that it was up to Blix.

But Bush didn't let them finish inspecting Iraq, so it wasn't really up to the UN was it JRK?

Do you think Bush was lying or simply mistaken?
 
One more thing
why is it so important to give Saddam a free pass?

Wow, you're kidding right? Who's giving Saddam a free pass on anything?
Do you even understand my argument?

Yes I think I do
you think we should have not invaded
that we were lied to and those lies are what we invaded on

I do not know what it is you do for a living

Information that as at best "different" has to find a breaking point
with Iraq it was Saddam his self
Blixes comments on or about 1/27/2002
Saddam claimed to have 6500 munitions
not the CIA
Blix
the UN
Powell
GWB

he claimed he had the anthrax
etc....

He allows no U2 fly-overs
he does nothing to help in resolvig these matters

your feelings on these events are your to keep and I respect that, but to ignore both sides of this story to justify them does this country no good

You also ignore the fact the 500+ munitions that were found had been there long before 2004, they were suppose to have part of those that were to be destroyedand there condition in 1994 were probably far different than in 2004

You notice how you don't answer my question JRK?

It's a simple question but you avoid it altogether.

Just an example of how you avoid facts that are in opposition to your prejudice.

Can you justify your question? Who is it that's giving Saddam a free pass?
 
Last edited:
Do you feel like changing or qualifying that statement now?

he will not change his mind with the facts starring him right in the face
its about this country, ot GWB

There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There was NO MOBILE WEAPONS LABORATORY.

There were NO UN-MANNED AERIAL VEHICLES.

There was NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE "YELLOW CAKE URANIUM".

THERE WERE HOWEVER LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES AND GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LIES.

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
that should take care of the WMds

Of note too is a January 2004 revelation by Syrian journalist defector Nizar Nayuf. He reported there were three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMDs had been transported prior to the 2003 invasion and were being stored. He also revealed some of these sites were being built with North Korean cooperation. This explained why three years later Israel attacked a nuclear facility being built in Syria by Pyongyang — and Syria’s subsequent failure to criticize Israel for fear of drawing further international attention to what Damascus had been doing.

Five years after Joe Wilson’s op-ed claimed no yellowcake was sold to Iraq — the ease with which Saddam could have snapped his fingers and reinstituted his nuclear program became apparent. In July 2008, in an operation kept secret at the time, 37 military air cargo flights shipped more than 500 metric tons of yellowcake — found in Iraq — out of the country for further transport and remediation to Canada.

that should take care of the yellow cake

Media Slow To Show WikiLeaks Justified Iraq War - HUMAN EVENTS

mothe fu----?
 
he will not change his mind with the facts starring him right in the face
its about this country, ot GWB

There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

There was NO MOBILE WEAPONS LABORATORY.

There were NO UN-MANNED AERIAL VEHICLES.

There was NO ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE "YELLOW CAKE URANIUM".

THERE WERE HOWEVER LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES....LIES AND GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING LIES.

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
that should take care of the WMds

Of note too is a January 2004 revelation by Syrian journalist defector Nizar Nayuf. He reported there were three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMDs had been transported prior to the 2003 invasion and were being stored. He also revealed some of these sites were being built with North Korean cooperation. This explained why three years later Israel attacked a nuclear facility being built in Syria by Pyongyang — and Syria’s subsequent failure to criticize Israel for fear of drawing further international attention to what Damascus had been doing.

Five years after Joe Wilson’s op-ed claimed no yellowcake was sold to Iraq — the ease with which Saddam could have snapped his fingers and reinstituted his nuclear program became apparent. In July 2008, in an operation kept secret at the time, 37 military air cargo flights shipped more than 500 metric tons of yellowcake — found in Iraq — out of the country for further transport and remediation to Canada.

that should take care of the yellow cake

Media Slow To Show WikiLeaks Justified Iraq War - HUMAN EVENTS

mothe fu----?

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

That should take care of the yellow cake and I've already destroyed your other 'arguments'.
 

Forum List

Back
Top