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

[BlindBoo]

From JRK's link wikilink.....

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,’ [stated then U.S. Ambassador Negroponte] ‘Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.’[79]

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of. the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.[80]

The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the U.S. invasion made it a moot point

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.

‘Support of a popular rebellion’ and ‘invasion to overthrow’ are two completely different things.

Stop trying to compare them.

Semantics. Both were wrong. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really do agree on much more than they will ever admit. Both are Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters in the end. I actually enjoy watching them pretend to disagree on so much. Very entertaining.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Originally Posted by JRK

IN FACT THIS IS FROM Wikipedia

Well...there you go, wikipedia...

 

[JRK]

Gaddafi "Evil". Had to go. Hussein "Evil". Had to go. Socialists/Progressives and Neocons really are just arguing over petty semantics. They both love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. Now they're both just stuck in "Defending their guy" Mode. Neither Iraq or Libya should have happened. So what are the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons really arguing about? They both love bombing & killing around the World. They're both wrong.

With respect to your thread
Your opinion on the matter of Iraq is just that, your opinion

1) Our representatives voted in favor of attacking Iraq both in the house and the senate as it related to the UN sanctions
2) Hans Blix states that the following 1-27-2003
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "I

3) WE invade 3/2003 as per the terms of the agreement voted on and approved in congress, Iraq has not adhered to many if not all of the UN resolutions
4) The DOD presents evidence to congress that in-deed Iraq has lied as there are over 500 munition found that meet criteria of WMD. The left claims these ar out dated and from the 80s. At no time has the UN made nor the US made any agreements that state "dont worry about destroying the mustard gas that is old" let me add that these munitions in 1994 probaly were not in the same shape. To the point the DOD has by doing this for ever more showed justification for the invasion
5) As a bonus, 550 metric tons of "yellow cake" are found after the invasion. This now is a legal as it gets.

Now my friend you dis agreeing with this war is your business. Changing the facts to justify it is not
With respect what was illegal about the Iraq invasion

1) congress approves wit terms
2) terms are met

 

[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?

Iraq was not legal, Libya is, and the UN and NATO and the EU were in agreement. You have a problem with that? Neoconservatism does not only result in warcrimes, it is a mental illness.

1) Your standard was it was an "international crime" if the UN didn't authorize it, but it's suddenly now that we're talking about Democrats.

2) You addressed two out of a long list. None of my examples were UN resolutions, so were they all war crimes, your stated standard?

I'm against all these, try to focus on my points and stop giving me our canned "neocon" talking points.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Semantics.

No, not a semantically difference but a very real and tangible difference.

The really funny part is you know this full well but it fits your agenda to be obtuse so you are.

 

[JRK]

From JRK's link wikilink.....

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,’ [stated then U.S. Ambassador Negroponte] ‘Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.’[79]

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of. the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.[80]

The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the U.S. invasion made it a moot point

what does the UN have to do with the US congress and the terms it set forth to attack?
Saddam did not meet HR-1441
we invaded
again you have shown nothing in our constitution that states the UN has jurisdiction in the matters that concern our country, its congress nor its president

 

[JRK]

Originally Posted by JRK

IN FACT THIS IS FROM Wikipedia

Well...there you go, wikipedia...

What r you trying to say?
that the UN had jurisdiction over this country and how it defends itself??
The US congress in 2002 thought different as we ll as our president in 2003

You want to claim it was illegal, then congress did the same

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Semantics.

No, not a semantically difference but a very real and tangible difference.

The really funny part is you know this full well but it fits your agenda to be obtuse so you are.

You guys are no different than the Neocons you claim to hate so much. You guys just love bombing & killing all around the World. You just pretend not to like it when it's the other side doing the bombing & killing. You guys can't fool me any more than the Neocons can. You're all just Big Government Globalist Nanny Staters in the end. You're both the problem.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Iraq was not legal, Libya is, and the UN and NATO and the EU were in agreement. You have a problem with that? Neoconservatism does not only result in warcrimes, it is a mental illness.

1) Your standard was it was an "international crime" if the UN didn't authorize it, but it's suddenly now that we're talking about Democrats.

2) You addressed two out of a long list. None of my examples were UN resolutions, so were they all war crimes, your stated standard?

I'm against all these, try to focus on my points and stop giving me our canned "neocon" talking points.

Not at all, and you know it. Focus on my points and stop tap dancing. I was talking about Iraq. Libya is different and you know it.

 

[kaz]

Iraq was not legal, Libya is, and the UN and NATO and the EU were in agreement. You have a problem with that? Neoconservatism does not only result in warcrimes, it is a mental illness.

1) Your standard was it was an "international crime" if the UN didn't authorize it, but it's suddenly now that we're talking about Democrats.

2) You addressed two out of a long list. None of my examples were UN resolutions, so were they all war crimes, your stated standard?

I'm against all these, try to focus on my points and stop giving me our canned "neocon" talking points.

Not at all, and you know it. Focus on my points and stop tap dancing. I was talking about Iraq. Libya is different and you know it.

I'm tap dancing? You said it was an "international crime" because the UN didn't authorize it. Libya is not different, and none are the rest of the items on my list, the UN authorized none of them. That's why I left Bosnia off it.

Since you said it's an international crime if the UN didn't authorize it, were the military actions on my list which were not authorized by the UN war crime? It's your standard, you are the one tap dancing. It's a simple question, answer it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Only true Constitutional Conservatism can save our Nation now. Both the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons have brought our Nation to its knees. They both just love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. So watching them argue over which stupid War was better or worse really is bizarre. They're both destroying our Nation. So join the Revolution and as many we will be victorious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees. Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.

 

[kaz]

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees. Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.

Bam, now that's what I'm talking about. Before your standard was there had to be a "UN resolution." Ooops Democrats didn't get those either. So now the standard is..."an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships."

Now that's tap dancing...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees. Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.

But he didn't consult me or the American People. He refused to go to our Congress. So the Libyan War was unjust and unconstitutional. It was their Civil War. Obviously you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons are hard-headed and stubborn so i'm not gonna get through to most of you. But hopefully some Americans are waking up. Constitutional Conservatism is the logical way forward for this Nation. You guys have done enough damage.

 

[IndependntLogic]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Hmmm. Let's see. They're now publicly supporting the Syrian and Iranian governments. Well, you know those wild and whacky Shia's!

Yeah. Big success!

 

[kaz]

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees. Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.

But he didn't consult me or the American People. He refused to go to our Congress. So the Libyan War was unjust and unconstitutional. It was their Civil War. Obviously you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons are hard-headed and stubborn so i'm not gonna get through to most of you. But hopefully some Americans are waking up. Constitutional Conservatism is the logical way forward for this Nation. You guys have done enough damage.

What are you talking about? He consulted the international leftist community and they were good! Why should he consult you? I don't get it...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hard Right libertarianism will bring America to its knees. Conty you will not get the world you want.

Obama has worked through an internationally recognized and legal set of organizations and legal relationships that Bush refused to follow.

But he didn't consult me or the American People. He refused to go to our Congress. So the Libyan War was unjust and unconstitutional. It was their Civil War. Obviously you Socialists/Progressives & Neocons are hard-headed and stubborn so i'm not gonna get through to most of you. But hopefully some Americans are waking up. Constitutional Conservatism is the logical way forward for this Nation. You guys have done enough damage.

What are you talking about? He consulted the international leftist community and they were good! Why should he consult you? I don't get it...

Yea Socialists/Progressives are just as lost as the Neocons are. As long as it's their Democrat doing the bombing & killing,all is well with them. That's why i always say the Anti-War Left are the biggest frauds in America. Where are all their 'Human Shields' for ole Gaddafi? They sent a bunch over there for ole Saddam no? As usual,it's all about politics for most. Hopefully one day the American People will wake up and see that it is Constitutional Conservatism that will save us. Til that day comes,the Socialists/Progressives and Neocons will continue on destroying our Nation.

 

[BlindBoo]

From JRK's link wikilink.....

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. Indeed, at the time 1441 was passed, both the U.S. and UK representatives stated explicitly that 1441 contained no provision for military action. As the New York Times noted about the negotiations,

'There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution,’ [stated then U.S. Ambassador Negroponte] ‘Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.’[79]

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock concurred,

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as one of. the co-sponsors of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution.[80]

The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the U.S. invasion made it a moot point

what does the UN have to do with the US congress and the terms it set forth to attack?
Saddam did not meet HR-1441
we invaded
again you have shown nothing in our constitution that states the UN has jurisdiction in the matters that concern our country, its congress nor its president

The UN was specifically mentioned in the resolution. The UN was set up to stop wars of aggression.

 

[Dude111]

There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq.

Nope not at all.....JUST FAKE REASONS FORCED UNTO THE SHEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHO BOUGHT IT