Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[MikeK]

A true moron is a person who only has an insult as opposed to an intelligent retort.

Saddam complained loudly about his betrayal by his people who accepted money from the CIA to not resist. Perhaps like many things, it did not make it into the American media. I have a much better vantage point from where I live.

No, you don't. You are an incredible idiot and your "vantage point" is your head up your ass.

Thank you for once again proving my point.

Here is my Ignore List.

1) Gautama
2) daveman
3) GHook93
4) Jroc
5) Liability
6) LibocalypseNow
7) Marc39
8) Ropey
9) California Girl
10) mudwhistle
11) rhodescholar
12) Wicked Jester
13) SFC Ollie
14) oldsalt
15) BriPat9643
16) Oddball
17) Unkotare
16) Two Thumbs

It is a relief to be rid of this collection of belligerent adolescents, adult morons and shit-slinging zoo monkeys who never have anything reasoned or intelligent to say but who are nothing but an insulting waste of time and space.

The Ignore feature has vastly improved the quality of my participation in this forum. I highly recommend it.

 

[kiwiman127]

I want to ask the right-wingers a favor? Stop getting your information from the Republican Party, which controls talk radio. And I don't want you to accept my narrative either. I want you to research the complicated history of the region. This will help you hold our presidents accountable when they ask the nation to go to war - which is bankrupting the taxpayer. If you are so worried about evil dictators, than stop voting for politicians who put these dictators in power. At least study the region so that you can contribute to the dialogue.

Below is a link to a pretty good overview of American intervention in the region written by the right-leaning CATO institute. I'm only asking you to read one small history of the region, written by an organization which does not like liberal democrats. You don't want to end up like JRK, who means well but doesn't talk about history with any degree of complexity. He seems to be getting 100% of his information from government t - Republican government. Don't trust Washington for your history. Do some work. We're begging you to become more educated on this stuff. We're begging you to ask your leaders better questions. We can't afford your stupidity any longer. We've run out of money.

And I'm asking presumptuous, arrogant ***** like you to shove it up your ass. You come across like a 7 year old kid who reads something in his big-print encyclopedia and then proceeds to run around pestering everyone with "I'll bet you didn't know..." Yes, kid, we knew, now STFU. Do you have any idea what a clown it makes you look like when you try to strut around like you personally unearthed some secret documents just because your ignorant ass finally got around to reading a little about well-known history?

Why don't you turn off CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, shit, all that crap just because I've decided you should? I won't ask you to turn off liberal talk radio because the last time liberals tried to compete there it went over like a druken pilot at an airshow, but why don't you take your "the GOP controls talk radio!" conspiracy nonsense and tuck it back up in your colon where it belongs? I'm not begging you to become more educated, because reading a few summaries then putting on your Indiana Jones hat and feeling superior is about all you half-wit liberals can be expected to do. I'm telling you to shut the **** up and give it a rest with the presumptuous bullshit. You're only embarrassing yourself.

I'd say you have done an admirable job embarrassing yourself. Do you read your own links? You have posted links that you think prove the point you are trying to make, yet within those links, facts arise that prove you wrong. (As I pointed out earlier in this thread)
Let's get real here. Our country really took a hit on the world stage for invading Iraq using cherry-picked evidence. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc; all came away looking pretty damn bad. Now does anyone who uses logic at all think that if WMDs that were not over 12 years old were found, that the Bush Administration wouldn't of been shouting from the highest roofs, "we found WMDs"? Not one of them has ever said, "see, we told you so"!
And using National Security" for a reason for them not saying anything, is really, really weak.
Why don't you just admit it, you got snookered, along with a huge majority of Americans. Except 90% of those who got snookered, know it and admit to it. The problem is, you die-hards are just like birthers and truthers, you folks belong in the Conspiracy section.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

They would if the war had been in response to an actual threat to the United States or its allies, as opposed to a war started to ensure a president’s re-election.

And as to whether or not the war was ‘won’ is yet to be determined, not so if it has indeed galvanized anti-Americanism in the Arab World for generations to come.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[As for this "blood for oil" stinking herring. I guess you missed the part where the US and GB put a 14 year EMBARGO on Iraqi oil.. And let that sit in place WAY longer than other allies wished to tolerate their loss of oil. With the exception of the defense of Kuwait, there has NEVER BEEN a quid pro quo of life for oil. If I missed it -- then please tell me where my free, reduced cost oil is stored. And it's a chuckle to state the England went all the way to India for salt when your puny little island is surrounded by NOTHING but salt.

Take that Picadilly -- and ponder the purpose of your rants..

George Bush Sr. cites the vital interest in invading Iraq, Sep. 1990:

Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors—neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless.

Blood for oil, unequivocally, indisputably.

I said NYCarbo --- "with the exception of the defense of Kuwait".. Care to play again?

I'm a little sensitive about the undeserved overuse of this leftist canard. Especially when it was pulled out of the deck to describe our interests in Afghanistan..

So we've never been to war in the Middle East for the oil except for the Iraq war?

Okay........

 

[flacaltenn]

George Bush Sr. cites the vital interest in invading Iraq, Sep. 1990:

Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors—neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless.

Blood for oil, unequivocally, indisputably.

I said NYCarbo --- "with the exception of the defense of Kuwait".. Care to play again?

I'm a little sensitive about the undeserved overuse of this leftist canard. Especially when it was pulled out of the deck to describe our interests in Afghanistan..

So we've never been to war in the Middle East for the oil except for the Iraq war?

Okay........

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

 

[MikeK]

who should care about a war that should have never been started. !

According to your expert analysis? Who the **** are you again?

Was the Iraq war necessary?

It is not a war but an unlawful invasion of a virtually defenseless sovereign nation. Not only was it absolutely unnecessary it has been extraordinarily costly in terms of life, treasure and national reputation. It has greatly advanced our emulation of the Roman Empire and one need not have a Ph.D. in History to know where that will take us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said NYCarbo --- "with the exception of the defense of Kuwait".. Care to play again?

I'm a little sensitive about the undeserved overuse of this leftist canard. Especially when it was pulled out of the deck to describe our interests in Afghanistan..

So we've never been to war in the Middle East for the oil except for the Iraq war?

Okay........

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why? Was Saddam more dangerous than the Soviet Union was for the 50 years of the Cold War?

In some ways yes, but the better question is if we could have prevented the Soviet threat from becoming what it did, wouldn't that have been worth it?

In some ways? And what would those ways be?

Apparently Unkotare has been stumped,

by Unkotare.

 

[Londoner]

Londoner you sanctimonious meatpie

I noticed you completely bailed and didn't even the quote the part where I explained about the exact decision that BOTH the US and GB had to make in 2001.

The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.

Are you sure this was the only choice? Bush 41 and his Defense Secretary, Dick Chaney, openly declared that removing Hussein would lead to unmanageable chaos.

Perhaps the choice was between:

A) failed containment (of a terribly weakened but evil dictator)

or

B) Unmanageable chaos.

Saying that B equals "allow Iraq to reboot their gov't" seems - IMHO - as narratively simplistic as "blood for oil".

Secondly, Washington seems to have a bad track record when they say "we need to make this choice or [fill-in-the-hysteria]". Seems like both parties construct false choices whenever they need to grease a questionable or unpopular or less-than-straightforward policy. We heard this with Vietnam and the Domino Theory, yet we lost Vietnam and Hawaii didn't fall. Gore tried it with the temperature boogeyman, and of course there's TARP, which may have been necessary but certainly not in the way it was done, with a 3 page memo and no accountability (e.g., without a transparent structure for where the money would go or how credit markets would be unfrozen). If the choice is between letting government flounder through the slow death of a terrible policy or giving them vast new powers and hugely expanded budgets to do really big things in parts of the world they clearly don't understand, I would plug my nose and vote for the former.

Anyway, if you want to see a pretty detailed, historically dense analysis of how very real threats are propogandized into very bad policies, take a look at "Washington's China".
Washington's China: the national ... - James Peck - Google Books

The book goes over the atmosphere in the Cold War state department. Take note of how one group of ascendant bureaucrats tries to sell their interpretation of China - complete with extremely dubious intelligence on China's involvement in a vast network of evil-doing. Had we taken them as seriously as we took the "failed containment" hysteria of Wolfie, Kagan, Kristol, Libby, Chaney, Rummy et al - and trust me the 1940's NSC folks made a case against China that makes Hussein look like a bunny rabbit - than our bankruptcy would have come much sooner, and Walmart would be stuck with American manufacturing.

You might be right about the necessary choice, but I'm skeptical, considering the source, which includes both parties.

 

[JRK]

So we've never been to war in the Middle East for the oil except for the Iraq war?

Okay........

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

I have another thread that is named the mountain of mis information
The US has far more oil than the Iraq has
Iraq was about Saddam
stop with the Myths
Iraq only supplies 3% of the worlds oil

nothing has been proves as you stated
It has been proved there was weapons Saddam was not suppose to have
it has been proved there was 550 Metric tons of yellow cake
it also has been proved Saddam was lying about his weapons
stop lying about the events that took place in Iraq andd the brave kids who set that country free of a mad man
OIL?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

I have another thread that is named the mountain of mis information
The US has far more oil than the Iraq has
Iraq was about Saddam
stop with the Myths
Iraq only supplies 3% of the worlds oil

nothing has been proves as you stated
It has been proved there was weapons Saddam was not suppose to have
it has been proved there was 550 Metric tons of yellow cake
it also has been proved Saddam was lying about his weapons
stop lying about the events that took place in Iraq andd the brave kids who set that country free of a mad man
OIL?

Since I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim declaring the justification for the start of the Iraq war as being OIL,

I suggest you take it up with him. The point is not debatable.

I've also proven your yellowcake nonsense to be exactly that, NONSENSE, as have others here.

You're making an ass of yourself. If that is your intent...

...well done.

 

[flacaltenn]

So we've never been to war in the Middle East for the oil except for the Iraq war?

Okay........

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know the diff between the 1st Gulf war, the 14 years of bad containment policy and the Bush Jr decision to fix that bad policy.

I give you concrete example of EMBARGOING mid -East oil for most of our involvement in conflict and you "declare victory". What a blowhard..

 

[flacaltenn]

who should care about a war that should have never been started. !

According to your expert analysis? Who the **** are you again?

Was the Iraq war necessary?

A decision WAS neccessary.. The containment was becoming a joke. The choices were to go along with most of EU and start letting Iraq out of the box or to take out the Bath regime. Before 9/11 I was for letting down the containment because all evidence pointed to no threat (UN weapons reports, statements from EU allies, ect).. AFTER 9/11, I gave Bush credit for making THE decision. We could no longer let Saddam out of containment and trust that he wouldn't somehow retaliate for 14 years of locking him down and bombing him daily.

So YES --- SOMEONE had to decide. We could not let the deaths of Iraqi children and the weak continue under embargo. And we could not bear to let the UN pretend to administer aid when they were criminally misusing Iraqi Oil funds..

 

[flacaltenn]

Londoner you sanctimonious meatpie

I noticed you completely bailed and didn't even the quote the part where I explained about the exact decision that BOTH the US and GB had to make in 2001.

The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.

Are you sure this was the only choice? Bush 41 and his Defense Secretary, Dick Chaney, openly declared that removing Hussein would lead to unmanageable chaos.

Perhaps the choice was between:

A) failed containment (of a terribly weakened but evil dictator)

or

B) Unmanageable chaos.

Saying that B equals "allow Iraq to reboot their gov't" seems - IMHO - as narratively simplistic as "blood for oil".

Secondly, Washington seems to have a bad track record when they say "we need to make this choice or [fill-in-the-hysteria]". Seems like both parties construct false choices whenever they need to grease a questionable or unpopular or less-than-straightforward policy. We heard this with Vietnam and the Domino Theory, yet we lost Vietnam and Hawaii didn't fall. Gore tried it with the temperature boogeyman, and of course there's TARP, which may have been necessary but certainly not in the way it was done, with a 3 page memo and no accountability (e.g., without a transparent structure for where the money would go or how credit markets would be unfrozen). If the choice is between letting government flounder through the slow death of a terrible policy or giving them vast new powers and hugely expanded budgets to do really big things in parts of the world they clearly don't understand, I would plug my nose and vote for the former.

Anyway, if you want to see a pretty detailed, historically dense analysis of how very real threats are propogandized into very bad policies, take a look at "Washington's China".
Washington's China: the national ... - James Peck - Google Books

The book goes over the atmosphere in the Cold War state department. Take note of how one group of ascendant bureaucrats tries to sell their interpretation of China - complete with extremely dubious intelligence on China's involvement in a vast network of evil-doing. Had we taken them as seriously as we took the "failed containment" hysteria of Wolfie, Kagan, Kristol, Libby, Chaney, Rummy et al - and trust me the 1940's NSC folks made a case against China that makes Hussein look like a bunny rabbit - than our bankruptcy would have come much sooner, and Walmart would be stuck with American manufacturing.

You might be right about the necessary choice, but I'm skeptical, considering the source, which includes both parties.

THose WERE the 2 choices Londoner. All the rest is deflection. The US and GB were left holding the containment bag. I can quote you EU resolutions on normalizing relations with Iraq. Germany was sponsoring trade fairs in Baghdad. There was no option to continue a failed policy of containment that had killed (by moderate sources) over 150,000 Iraqis due to medical/food shortages and daily bombings for 12 years. Either let Saddam go or remove him. Name a 3rd option..

This IS the way that history will record the decision.. Trust me..

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's right you cackling Carbo.. For 14 years thru both Dem/Rep admins, we used our military might to make sure that NO ONE had access to Iraqi oil.. Unless the UN got it's crony cut.
And today -- there is NO EVIDENCE that we have placed undue influence on the Iraqis to favor US companies for new oil contracts or development contracts. Ditto with the LIbyan embargo. Although the Brits released a prisoner with blood on HIS hands to get a Libyan oil deal. Ditto with the phoney "pipeline" deal in Afghanistan which was GAS not oil -- but hey -- leftists don't know the diff. Can you think of OTHER blood we've supposedly spilled for oil in the MidEast?

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know the diff between the 1st Gulf war, the 14 years of bad containment policy and the Bush Jr decision to fix that bad policy.

I give you concrete example of EMBARGOING mid -East oil for most of our involvement in conflict and you "declare victory". What a blowhard..

I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim. The Iraq War started in 1991. It has been one war, not 2. It was started because of a perceived threat to our access to OIL in the region.

Containment was working. Iraq was militarily impotent. Throwing away American lives and money served no good purpose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Londoner you sanctimonious meatpie

I noticed you completely bailed and didn't even the quote the part where I explained about the exact decision that BOTH the US and GB had to make in 2001.

The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.

Are you sure this was the only choice? Bush 41 and his Defense Secretary, Dick Chaney, openly declared that removing Hussein would lead to unmanageable chaos.

Perhaps the choice was between:

A) failed containment (of a terribly weakened but evil dictator)

or

B) Unmanageable chaos.

Saying that B equals "allow Iraq to reboot their gov't" seems - IMHO - as narratively simplistic as "blood for oil".

Secondly, Washington seems to have a bad track record when they say "we need to make this choice or [fill-in-the-hysteria]". Seems like both parties construct false choices whenever they need to grease a questionable or unpopular or less-than-straightforward policy. We heard this with Vietnam and the Domino Theory, yet we lost Vietnam and Hawaii didn't fall. Gore tried it with the temperature boogeyman, and of course there's TARP, which may have been necessary but certainly not in the way it was done, with a 3 page memo and no accountability (e.g., without a transparent structure for where the money would go or how credit markets would be unfrozen). If the choice is between letting government flounder through the slow death of a terrible policy or giving them vast new powers and hugely expanded budgets to do really big things in parts of the world they clearly don't understand, I would plug my nose and vote for the former.

Anyway, if you want to see a pretty detailed, historically dense analysis of how very real threats are propogandized into very bad policies, take a look at "Washington's China".
Washington's China: the national ... - James Peck - Google Books

The book goes over the atmosphere in the Cold War state department. Take note of how one group of ascendant bureaucrats tries to sell their interpretation of China - complete with extremely dubious intelligence on China's involvement in a vast network of evil-doing. Had we taken them as seriously as we took the "failed containment" hysteria of Wolfie, Kagan, Kristol, Libby, Chaney, Rummy et al - and trust me the 1940's NSC folks made a case against China that makes Hussein look like a bunny rabbit - than our bankruptcy would have come much sooner, and Walmart would be stuck with American manufacturing.

You might be right about the necessary choice, but I'm skeptical, considering the source, which includes both parties.

THose WERE the 2 choices Londoner. All the rest is deflection. The US and GB were left holding the containment bag. I can quote you EU resolutions on normalizing relations with Iraq. Germany was sponsoring trade fairs in Baghdad. There was no option to continue a failed policy of containment that had killed (by moderate sources) over 150,000 Iraqis due to medical/food shortages and daily bombings for 12 years. Either let Saddam go or remove him. Name a 3rd option..

This IS the way that history will record the decision.. Trust me..

A 3rd option? Maintain military containment and relax trade embargo.

 

[JRK]

I've proven the Iraq war was started over oil. I suggest you deal with it...

...preferably in silence.

I have another thread that is named the mountain of mis information
The US has far more oil than the Iraq has
Iraq was about Saddam
stop with the Myths
Iraq only supplies 3% of the worlds oil

nothing has been proves as you stated
It has been proved there was weapons Saddam was not suppose to have
it has been proved there was 550 Metric tons of yellow cake
it also has been proved Saddam was lying about his weapons
stop lying about the events that took place in Iraq andd the brave kids who set that country free of a mad man
OIL?

Since I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim declaring the justification for the start of the Iraq war as being OIL,

I suggest you take it up with him. The point is not debatable.

I've also proven your yellowcake nonsense to be exactly that, NONSENSE, as have others here.

You're making an ass of yourself. If that is your intent...

...well done.

Sr had what to do with 2003?
What you Libs fail to grasp was the laws as mandated by the UN is what is at issue here
Munitions as well as the yellow cake his buried air force were the exact reasons we invaded
Saddam was told to clean it up. His documentation showed he had a mountain of Anthrax, nerve gas, 6500 munitions that have never been found
The bottom line is the 500 + munitions found were a small part of the lies Saddam told, one way or the other
The Yellow cake was just another part of the puzzle. Saddam has no other use for it than weapons
It has been reported that the yellow cake was allways there and was under the control of IAEA
This maybe true, bottom line for some reason it was still there in 2003 and was not suupose to be
that is the question is it not?
what did he have?
when did he have it?
Why did Blix and the UN think the same we did?
why does the left ignore this?

Oil?
we have more oil in the US that we could create jobs with and stabalize this economy that BHO will not let us touch
focus
we need change in 2012, History will show how wrong you are

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have another thread that is named the mountain of mis information
The US has far more oil than the Iraq has
Iraq was about Saddam
stop with the Myths
Iraq only supplies 3% of the worlds oil

nothing has been proves as you stated
It has been proved there was weapons Saddam was not suppose to have
it has been proved there was 550 Metric tons of yellow cake
it also has been proved Saddam was lying about his weapons
stop lying about the events that took place in Iraq andd the brave kids who set that country free of a mad man
OIL?

Since I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim declaring the justification for the start of the Iraq war as being OIL,

I suggest you take it up with him. The point is not debatable.

I've also proven your yellowcake nonsense to be exactly that, NONSENSE, as have others here.

You're making an ass of yourself. If that is your intent...

...well done.

Sr had what to do with 2003?
What you Libs fail to grasp was the laws as mandated by the UN is what is at issue here
Munitions as well as the yellow cake his buried air force were the exact reasons we invaded
Saddam was told to clean it up. His documentation showed he had a mountain of Anthrax, nerve gas, 6500 munitions that have never been found
The bottom line is the 500 + munitions found were a small part of the lies Saddam told, one way or the other
The Yellow cake was just another part of the puzzle. Saddam has no other use for it than weapons
It has been reported that the yellow cake was allways there and was under the control of IAEA
This maybe true, bottom line for some reason it was still there in 2003 and was not suupose to be
that is the question is it not?
what did he have?
when did he have it?
Why did Blix and the UN think the same we did?
why does the left ignore this?

Oil?
we have more oil in the US that we could create jobs with and stabalize this economy that BHO will not let us touch
focus
we need change in 2012, History will show how wrong you are

So,

GW Bush was lying when he acknowledged there were no WMD's?

and,

GHW Bush was lying when he said it was the oil that was the vital national interest in going to war with Iraq in 1991?

 

[JRK]

Since I quoted George Bush Sr. verbatim declaring the justification for the start of the Iraq war as being OIL,

I suggest you take it up with him. The point is not debatable.

I've also proven your yellowcake nonsense to be exactly that, NONSENSE, as have others here.

You're making an ass of yourself. If that is your intent...

...well done.

Sr had what to do with 2003?
What you Libs fail to grasp was the laws as mandated by the UN is what is at issue here
Munitions as well as the yellow cake his buried air force were the exact reasons we invaded
Saddam was told to clean it up. His documentation showed he had a mountain of Anthrax, nerve gas, 6500 munitions that have never been found
The bottom line is the 500 + munitions found were a small part of the lies Saddam told, one way or the other
The Yellow cake was just another part of the puzzle. Saddam has no other use for it than weapons
It has been reported that the yellow cake was allways there and was under the control of IAEA
This maybe true, bottom line for some reason it was still there in 2003 and was not suupose to be
that is the question is it not?
what did he have?
when did he have it?
Why did Blix and the UN think the same we did?
why does the left ignore this?

Oil?
we have more oil in the US that we could create jobs with and stabalize this economy that BHO will not let us touch
focus
we need change in 2012, History will show how wrong you are

So,

GW Bush was lying when he acknowledged there were no WMD's?

and,

GHW Bush was lying when he said it was the oil that was the vital national interest in going to war with Iraq in 1991?

The DOD stated there was WMDs
what W said was there was not the stockpiles we were led to beileve by the UN as well as the documentation the Iraqis had
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
sense you did not supply a link to your claim what W stated in the full context

GWB was correct in his statement that in the context as there where active WMDs was in correct
His claim there was none in the context of any is in correct
what baffles me is that the DOD made this information public and to congress in 2006. WHy did the press excpet fox news ignore it?
and what was the question asked that GWB responded too?
at what point in these debates does the left realize that the UN was making the same claims as we were? and that Iraaq had 18 months to rid there country of the 6000 munitions that are still un accounted for?Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com

to confirm my thoughts
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

This is n not GWB words and let it be known his comment does not change the fact that Iraq was suppose to have destroyed these. It is been my content that the myth is there was NONE, The links I provided were clear in what state these munitions where

 

[midcan5]

There was a war in Iraq? Who knew? Wouldn't a war require two sides or more to battle it out? Oh the insurgents were one side, I get it now, war is a nice word to cover an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. But reasons followed like water at high tide, one person counted 33 reasons for our invasion of Iraq, I wonder which one counted or did they all? Was Granada a war too? One day history will look back and say what a primitive time these are, just as we look back now.

"We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or where will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for war seem to know who did it or where to look for them." Hunter S. Thompson, September 12th, 2001