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

[OODA_Loop]

Saddam misted the Kurds with Axe Body Spray.

 

[JRK]

Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?

We invaded Iraq because Saddam had not adhered to Un resolutuion 1442
this was proved after the invasion when the yellow cake wass found and the 500 munitions as stated over and over here-in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

 

[JRK]

lets try this again for all of the engineers from GE that have joined us
I mean no dis respect tp you Kaz but to put that into this conversation as though your superior than those of us who support the actions we took in 2003 is so typical os a liiberal I do not know where to start

1) congress votes 77-23 to attack Saddam
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
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

2) Blix makes his comments 1-27-2003
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[117] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[117]

This was the straw that broke the camals back, notice there is no mention of the yellow cake being declared nor being found
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) DOD presents congress the proof needed to make this a legal war
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

4) 2008 the yellow cake that was found only adds to the reason

 

[kaz]

working for GE makes you what?
one thing I can tell you it has done to you, denial

artificially low? is that a joke?
gas was less than 2.00 at the end of GWB admin
are you stating that puddle we used from the reserves made a difference?

Absolutely oil is artificially low. As I pointed out, we are paying large amounts for defense that are not in the oil prices. Artificially low doesn't mean it's less then what you want to pay, artificially low means it's lower then a free market would price it. When government is securing oil supplies, it increases supply which lowers price. Basic economics. And as always happens when government skews free markets, we pay for it in other ways, over and over and over....

one more thing
i am an engineer also

I am not an engineer. I was in GE Management and managagement consulting for my career until I went entrepreneurial. I now own and run two businesses. Nothing I said was about engineering or technology, I was discussing the market dynamics.

 

[kaz]

lets try this again for all of the engineers from GE that have joined us
I mean no dis respect tp you Kaz but to put that into this conversation as though your superior than those of us who support the actions we took in 2003 is so typical os a liiberal I do not know where to start

I'm a libertarian. Liberals are advocating government solutions to energy and I'm advocating free market solutions. In what possible way is that "liberal?" Liberals always call me a Republican. I'm not sure why telling you my background means I'm claiming to be "superior." I thought I explained my views pretty well on their own. I was telling you what my background is.

As for the rest, I already addressed it. You are explaining why if we are in the Middle East we need to pursue the course we did. I am advocating an actually different course. Again unlike the left who advocate the same course only with themselves behind the steering wheel.

 

[JRK]

working for GE makes you what?
one thing I can tell you it has done to you, denial

artificially low? is that a joke?
gas was less than 2.00 at the end of GWB admin
are you stating that puddle we used from the reserves made a difference?

Absolutely oil is artificially low. As I pointed out, we are paying large amounts for defense that are not in the oil prices. Artificially low doesn't mean it's less then what you want to pay, artificially low means it's lower then a free market would price it. When government is securing oil supplies, it increases supply which lowers price. Basic economics. And as always happens when government skews free markets, we pay for it in other ways, over and over and over....

one more thing
i am an engineer also

I am not an engineer. I was in GE Management and managagement consulting for my career until I went entrepreneurial. I now own and run two businesses. Nothing I said was about engineering or technology, I was discussing the market dynamics.

10-4
its all good to me
my issue with all of this is not your opinion, thats yours
I repsect that
my issue is the level of lying that took place that got Obama elected and congress in the mess it was in from 08-2010. The only way I know to prevent it is to put a stop to it thru the information hi-way

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Depends on how you perceive success & failure. I would bet the answers to this question will go along Party-Lines. The 'Get-Gaddafi' crowd will claim Iraq is a failure while the 'Get Hussein' crowd will probably claim it a success. If you were to ask the question 'Is the Libya War a success or failure?',i'm pretty sure the answers would work in a vice-versa fashion. The bottom line is that Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really do agree on much more than they like to admit. Gaddafi bad? Had to go. Hussein bad? Had to go. Which one was more "Evil"? You tell me.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

You could argue getting rid of Saddam Hussein was much more important than getting rid of Gaddafi. Hussein did use WMD on people in the past. He also invaded other Nations in the past. There is no proof Gaddafi ever engaged in those actions. In fact he got a long quite well with his African neighbors. So i can see how some could argue getting rid of Hussein was a more credible action.

 

[JRK]

Depends on how you perceive success & failure. I would bet the answers to this question will go along Party-Lines. The 'Get-Gaddafi' crowd will claim Iraq is a failure while the 'Get Hussein' crowd will probably claim it a success. If you were to ask the question 'Is the Libya War a success or failure?',i'm pretty sure the answers would work in a vice-versa fashion. The bottom line is that Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really do agree on much more than they like to admit. Gaddafi bad? Had to go. Hussein bad? Had to go. Which one was more "Evil"? You tell me.

well things in Lybia are not loking good
My task is not to change ones mind, mine is to stopp all of the lying about so much. Obama has failed
the GOP lost much respect with all of the lying that has went on that now the truth is coming out for so much
this one to me is also personal
We had over 4000 kids who have gave there life for this mission
by choice they went there and done it, no one forced them too. They have done so much for this world, the middle east, Iraq, Afgan, and this country

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK demonstrates that neoconservatism is a mental disease with international war crimes potential.

He's not advocating anything that Obama hasn't done. Are you saying Obama has a "mental disease with international war crimes potential" or is this yet another of your flagrant it's OK when the left does it standards?

Obama inherited the war crimes mess in Iraq and has cleared it up, is drawing down Afghanistan (a legal war), and has legally interjected into the Libyan mess.

Nope, no comparison. The bushies are war criminals, Obama is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?

We invaded Iraq because Saddam had not adhered to Un resolutuion 1442
this was proved after the invasion when the yellow cake wass found and the 500 munitions as stated over and over here-in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

That invasion was an international crime, JRK. The UN did not authorize the USA to do so under any UN resolution. The second the US troops went to war, the war crimes clock started ticking, and it won't until the last Bush dies of old age, either in prison or unable to travel out of the USA.

No true blue red blood American supports your position.

 

[georgephillip]

It is a fact that the U.N. did not authorize any action; it was quite a little issue for the Bush administration while they were trying to drum up support for the war.

"Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq.

"In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the 'eighteenth resolution' and others called the 'second resolution.'

"This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.

"Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion.

"Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes."

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Iraq has never directly attacked the US there was neither a legitimate excuse for invasion based upon individual or collective self-defense nor any Security Council resolution specifically authorizing an attack on Iraq.

War is a racket and Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Condi, et al, have all resumed reaping profits from wars they lied into existence. They should all draw their last breath in supermax.

The 1993 WTC bombing was done with an Iraqi at the helm

The Un does not supercede the US senate when it comes to defending this country. Never has, never will
They were given years to clean uo that mess

The 2001 WTC bombings were orchestrated by 15 Saudis.

Their country has even more oil than Saddam's did.

The US Senate is bound by the same Constitution, laws and treaties (including the UN Charter) as the rest of America.

Since the UN Charter authorizes only two scenarios for going to war, and since the sovereign state of Iraq never attacked the US nor did the US obtain Security Council authorization for an invasion of Iraq, every crime committed in Iraq since March 2003 is a war crime.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Was Gaddafi any more "Evil" than Saddam Hussein? We bombed the hell out of Libya without Congressional approval. That War was both unjust & unconstitutional. That's why i always say Socialists/Progressives and Neocons have much more in common than they would ever admit. All the Left cheerleading for killing Gaddafi really is pretty bizarre. Very hypocritical.

 

[JRK]

"Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq.

"In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the 'eighteenth resolution' and others called the 'second resolution.'

"This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.

"Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion.

"Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes."

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Iraq has never directly attacked the US there was neither a legitimate excuse for invasion based upon individual or collective self-defense nor any Security Council resolution specifically authorizing an attack on Iraq.

War is a racket and Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Condi, et al, have all resumed reaping profits from wars they lied into existence. They should all draw their last breath in supermax.

The 1993 WTC bombing was done with an Iraqi at the helm

The Un does not supercede the US senate when it comes to defending this country. Never has, never will
They were given years to clean uo that mess

The 2001 WTC bombings were orchestrated by 15 Saudis.

Their country has even more oil than Saddam's did.

The US Senate is bound by the same Constitution, laws and treaties (including the UN Charter) as the rest of America.

Since the UN Charter authorizes only two scenarios for going to war, and since the sovereign state of Iraq never attacked the US nor did the US obtain Security Council authorization for an invasion of Iraq, every crime committed in Iraq since March 2003 is a war crime.

my friend you are without doubt lost
If you think for one minute that this country is going to defend its borders only when the UN says we can you are badly mistaken
No where in our constitution will you find "and if the UN approves"

Look I hate to say this, but are you nuts?
The UN has nothing to do with how this country will ever defend it self

 

[JRK]

"Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq.

"In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the 'eighteenth resolution' and others called the 'second resolution.'

"This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.

"Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion.

"Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes."

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Iraq has never directly attacked the US there was neither a legitimate excuse for invasion based upon individual or collective self-defense nor any Security Council resolution specifically authorizing an attack on Iraq.

War is a racket and Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Condi, et al, have all resumed reaping profits from wars they lied into existence. They should all draw their last breath in supermax.

The 1993 WTC bombing was done with an Iraqi at the helm

The Un does not supercede the US senate when it comes to defending this country. Never has, never will
They were given years to clean uo that mess

The 2001 WTC bombings were orchestrated by 15 Saudis.

Their country has even more oil than Saddam's did.

The US Senate is bound by the same Constitution, laws and treaties (including the UN Charter) as the rest of America.

Since the UN Charter authorizes only two scenarios for going to war, and since the sovereign state of Iraq never attacked the US nor did the US obtain Security Council authorization for an invasion of Iraq, every crime committed in Iraq since March 2003 is a war crime.

one more thing what the hell does oil have to do with it? (except the UN getting kick backs with the oil for food program)
and following your logic the forst WTC bombing was done by an Iraqi citizen

 

[Nic_Driver]

Ya OK, the US was so scared of Saddam's "yellow cake" that they had to invade and kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis who had no cake. Hmmm. Is this what passes for Yankee logic?

We invaded Iraq because Saddam had not adhered to Un resolutuion 1442
this was proved after the invasion when the yellow cake wass found and the 500 munitions as stated over and over here-in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

For anyone who might still be following along.

Oh, and again, here's the yellowcake;

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq


Carry on...

Just a repost that debunks JRK (points that destroy his argument that he won't even acknowledge).

 

[georgephillip]

The 1993 WTC bombing was done with an Iraqi at the helm

The Un does not supercede the US senate when it comes to defending this country. Never has, never will
They were given years to clean uo that mess

The 2001 WTC bombings were orchestrated by 15 Saudis.

Their country has even more oil than Saddam's did.

The US Senate is bound by the same Constitution, laws and treaties (including the UN Charter) as the rest of America.

Since the UN Charter authorizes only two scenarios for going to war, and since the sovereign state of Iraq never attacked the US nor did the US obtain Security Council authorization for an invasion of Iraq, every crime committed in Iraq since March 2003 is a war crime.

my friend you are without doubt lost
If you think for one minute that this country is going to defend its borders only when the UN says we can you are badly mistaken
No where in our constitution will you find "and if the UN approves"

Look I hate to say this, but are you nuts?
The UN has nothing to do with how this country will ever defend it self

What specific threat to the borders of this country did Iraq pose?

You seem to be conveniently ignorant of this country's basic framework of law:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[kaz]

JRK demonstrates that neoconservatism is a mental disease with international war crimes potential.

He's not advocating anything that Obama hasn't done. Are you saying Obama has a "mental disease with international war crimes potential" or is this yet another of your flagrant it's OK when the left does it standards?

Obama inherited the war crimes mess in Iraq and has cleared it up, is drawing down Afghanistan (a legal war), and has legally interjected into the Libyan mess.

Nope, no comparison. The bushies are war criminals, Obama is not.

So in other words yes, it's "yet another of your flagrant it's OK when the left does it standards." I already knew that, I just wanted to hear you say it.

 

[kaz]

That invasion was an international crime, JRK. The UN did not authorize the USA to do so under any UN resolution

Yet another it's OK when the left does it standard. What were the resolutions for the following:

- Obama attacks Libya
- Obama continues the war in Iraq continuing Bush's timeline
- Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan
- Clinton attacks Kosovo
- Clinton attacks Afghanistan
- Clinton invades northern Iraq
- Clinton creates No Fly zones over Iraq
- Clinton attacks the Sudan
- Clinton invades Haiti
- Clinton continues the war in Somalia

You got an excuse other then your normal it's different, those were Democrats?

 

[kaz]

The difference Starkey and why you are a fool is that I actually oppose most of those. I do support attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda, they attacked us. I don't give a crap about UN resolutions to defend ourselves. But I actually oppose the rest of them as well as when Republicans do it. You only oppose Democrats not being in the White House. I have a conviction, you want more welfare.