Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[NYcarbineer]

I'll repeat the question:

Why, if Saddam had all this WMD capability,

did we find NO PEOPLE who were ever actually involved with it?

Where are the builders, the operators, the security personnel, the transportation personnel, the support personnel, the administrative personnel?

Thousands of people would have had to be involved.

We found none. The whole 'Saddam had WMD's' claim falls apart completely on that simple common sense irrefutable flaw in the claim.

No people, no WMD's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kuwait was not our ally, a border issue between Iraq and Kuwait was not something we should've meddled in.

They may not have been an Ally by treaty, but they were a sovereign nation who was invaded. No, we are not the world police, but we are not barbarians either. We saw a nation hel bent on acuqiring territory at the expnse of innocent people....and we needed to put a stop to it.

SO I assume your beef is with the Gulf war?

So we needed to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to give up their

occupied territory?

lolol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me ask you something.

IF Saddam had WMD's, why did we never find the thousands of personnel that would have been required to develop, build, operate, and maintain multiple WMD programs?

Good point. A question for which there is no answer.

It's been so long since I've been killing these claims with that simple irrefutable point that I'd forgotten about until today.

I think I first made that point in about 2005.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Is North Korea in breach of a treaty initiated by the US?

Nope. At least not to my knowledge. My point, which I believe is obvious, is that NK has WMD's, we only suspected Iraq had and was building WMD's. Breach of a treaty is not justification for war.

Well....lets complete that statement before we say it is not justification of a war.....

A country invades a sovereign nation, our ally, unprovoked and strictly for financial and territotrial gain.
The US, as a commitment to our allies, retaliates and in a matter of hours has the invading nation retreating and surrendering.
Faced with a decision to take control of the invading nation (as was our right following surrender) or give the nation back to its leader with provisions, the US chose the latter...with the provsiion being...and I paraphrase.....

'we will leave you with your leadership in tact but in return we want you to render access to UN inspectiuon teams to review all activities that may be deemed as preperatory to future aggresive actions againt our allies, your neighbors. We ask of this so we can be rest assured that you never invade another ally of the US unprovoked'

The breach of treaty was the sole reason for the treaty.

Why have a treaty iof there are no negative ramifications for beiung in breach of the treaty?

What kind of message would that send to others we have a trreaty with?

And bear in mind...it is not as if we did not warn them over and over again that we will use force if they do not comply with the treaty.

Heck....we gave them the day, time and location of our first military action....weeks in advance!

Actually...

UN Security Council Resolution 678, Iraq / Kuwait - Council on Foreign Relations

The resolution is an update of Security Council resolution 660 and ultimately gives authorization for invasion. "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.

We invaded with UN approval, that's the difference.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nope. At least not to my knowledge. My point, which I believe is obvious, is that NK has WMD's, we only suspected Iraq had and was building WMD's. Breach of a treaty is not justification for war.

Well....lets complete that statement before we say it is not justification of a war.....

A country invades a sovereign nation, our ally, unprovoked and strictly for financial and territotrial gain.
The US, as a commitment to our allies, retaliates and in a matter of hours has the invading nation retreating and surrendering.
Faced with a decision to take control of the invading nation (as was our right following surrender) or give the nation back to its leader with provisions, the US chose the latter...with the provsiion being...and I paraphrase.....

'we will leave you with your leadership in tact but in return we want you to render access to UN inspectiuon teams to review all activities that may be deemed as preperatory to future aggresive actions againt our allies, your neighbors. We ask of this so we can be rest assured that you never invade another ally of the US unprovoked'

The breach of treaty was the sole reason for the treaty.

Why have a treaty iof there are no negative ramifications for beiung in breach of the treaty?

What kind of message would that send to others we have a trreaty with?

And bear in mind...it is not as if we did not warn them over and over again that we will use force if they do not comply with the treaty.

Heck....we gave them the day, time and location of our first military action....weeks in advance!

Actually...

UN Security Council Resolution 678, Iraq / Kuwait - Council on Foreign Relations

The resolution is an update of Security Council resolution 660 and ultimately gives authorization for invasion. "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.

We invaded with UN approval, that's the difference.

And yet how many of the coalition of the willing, notwithstanding the British, shed blood and treasure in the numbers that we did? And what is the cost-benefit to the American people, to the parents, spouses and children who lost their loved ones? To the taxpayers who saw their retirement disappear, and to the Iraqi People who continue to suffer?

Of course the philosophical argument prevails; our invasion and occupation of Iraq does not meet the test of a just war.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Traditionally a war isn't considered over, much less won, until all the victors return home. However, since it has been the continuing policy of the U.S. Government to engage in wars it cannot leave, much less win - I guess you are right - no one cares.

 

[Jarhead]

Let me ask you something.

IF Saddam had WMD's, why did we never find the thousands of personnel that would have been required to develop, build, operate, and maintain multiple WMD programs?

you know...you are right.

I cant imagine why those people would not come out in the open and admit that they were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own country men and women once their protection was eliminnated.

It just doesnt make sense.

So Saddam had enough up and running WMD weapons systems to be able to represent an imminent threat to the US, or Europe,

but no one in Iraq worked on any of them?

They wouldn't all be part of any deaths of their own countrymen, btw.

So do you deny tens of thousands of his people died due to the gassing as was documented?

Exactly where are those thosuands of people that made and distributed said chemicals?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Traditionally a war isn't considered over, much less won, until all the victors return home. However, since it has been the continuing policy of the U.S. Government to engage in wars it cannot leave, much less win - I guess you are right - no one cares.

That's a good point, how can we know we won a war until the troops are all home?

When was the last time we brought everyone home once a war was over? WWI?

 

[Jarhead]

Traditionally a war isn't considered over, much less won, until all the victors return home. However, since it has been the continuing policy of the U.S. Government to engage in wars it cannot leave, much less win - I guess you are right - no one cares.

That's a good point, how can we know we won a war until the troops are all home?

When was the last time we brought everyone home once a war was over? WWI?

interesting.
Probably the Civil War....but then again, all were home DURING the war.

Years of studying the Civil War and I still can not picture it....how a soldier felt when he shot an opponent...or worse...how he felt when he killed one in hand to hand combat that was quite common.

It makes the hair on my neck rise.

 

[JRK]

Traditionally a war isn't considered over, much less won, until all the victors return home. However, since it has been the continuing policy of the U.S. Government to engage in wars it cannot leave, much less win - I guess you are right - no one cares.

We will be out of iraq 100%
1-1-2012
I do not undertsand why anything that simple would be missed by a citizen of this great country
I really do not understand that

 

[Dr.Drock]

Traditionally a war isn't considered over, much less won, until all the victors return home. However, since it has been the continuing policy of the U.S. Government to engage in wars it cannot leave, much less win - I guess you are right - no one cares.

We will be out of iraq 100%
1-1-2012
I do not undertsand why anything that simple would be missed by a citizen of this great country
I really do not understand that

I'll believe it when i see it

We're still in Germany/Japan/Korea/Vietnam etc.

 

[JRK]

It si amzing to me the latest lie of no-one working on WMds has took root
exactly how many myths do you liberals think you can keep goin?
you keep telling a lie long enough one day it will become the truth?

16 Nov 2005 – New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida ... plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion ...
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
22 Jan 2007 – 190 - Iraqi Nuclear Scientist: Saddam Hid Biological and Chemical WMD Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq/UAE) - 8/10/2004 - 00:01:53 A MEMRI.org VIDEO.
Iraqi Scientist Says Saddam Hid His WMDs - YouTube

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Says Former Iraqi General
www.christiansofiraq.com/weaponsjan256.htmlIraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Says Former Iraqi General. Jauary 25, 06. The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved ...

you offer nothing but mythsthere are so much evidence, why do you keep questioning it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

you know...you are right.

I cant imagine why those people would not come out in the open and admit that they were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their own country men and women once their protection was eliminnated.

It just doesnt make sense.

So Saddam had enough up and running WMD weapons systems to be able to represent an imminent threat to the US, or Europe,

but no one in Iraq worked on any of them?

They wouldn't all be part of any deaths of their own countrymen, btw.

So do you deny tens of thousands of his people died due to the gassing as was documented?

Exactly where are those thosuands of people that made and distributed said chemicals?

What is your point? The attack on the Kurds is a documented fact. A Dutch businessman got 15 years in prison for providing chemicals.

Where are the people associated with the WMD's we never found, because they never existed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It si amzing to me the latest lie of no-one working on WMds has took root
exactly how many myths do you liberals think you can keep goin?
you keep telling a lie long enough one day it will become the truth?

16 Nov 2005 – New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida ... plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion ...
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
22 Jan 2007 – 190 - Iraqi Nuclear Scientist: Saddam Hid Biological and Chemical WMD Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq/UAE) - 8/10/2004 - 00:01:53 A MEMRI.org VIDEO.
Iraqi Scientist Says Saddam Hid His WMDs - YouTube

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Says Former Iraqi General
www.christiansofiraq.com/weaponsjan256.htmlIraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Says Former Iraqi General. Jauary 25, 06. The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved ...

you offer nothing but mythsthere are so much evidence, why do you keep questioning it?

I want to know what happened to the thousands of people that would be required to operate a real life real threat WMD program.

Naming one guy who was selling a book is not thousands.

 

[JRK]

Whats the use of providing information to a liberal who keeps screaming your a liar?
I mean after a while its like whats the use

here is about 30 of them
23 Mar 2003 – Were the plant to be confirmed as a chemical weapons factory, the ... that about 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered at the plant. ...
Troops uncover chemical weapons factory - report | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[8537]

you should really research outcomes before you post that crap.

"a suspected chemical factory in Iraq, according to unconfirmed reports."

Now do your DD and let us know the outcome of this. (hint: it won't end the way you are hoping it does)

 

[JRK]

you should really research outcomes before you post that crap.

"a suspected chemical factory in Iraq, according to unconfirmed reports."

Now do your DD and let us know the outcome of this. (hint: it won't end the way you are hoping it does)

Crap?
You know what amazes me anout you guys
I have never tried to hide anything and all you do is accuse
I see you made no comment on the other thread also
All you guys do is scream liar liar liar and thats it
you make accusations about things that mean nothing, zero, zilch
and what drives us nuts about this
your doing this to your own country, You have created this mountainof myths that Al Qaeda ciould not have done
why?
whats your purpose?

I mean there is so much information that shows all of your claims are erroneous, ad yet you drool at the chance to bring more harm to this country and the kids who went over there and got the job done

 

[JRK]

It is a shame we have americans that enjoy the rewards that living in this country allow us bringing so much harm to this entire event
dis agreeing with me is fine
making accusations that have nothing to do with the facts is another
just to be making them
"where are te people who cared for the WMDS"

Thats like asking were are the trac hoe operators that buried his jets or
were are the troops who launched the scud missles
or were are the troops who gassed the kurds in the 80s or were are the troops that killed the other 900,000 Iraqis?

 

[JRK]

I have no isue with people who dis agree with me
asking me where are the soldiers who cared for the WMDs has nothing to with HR 1442, documents that Saddam gave the UN stating this is what he had

Creating an event that has nothing to d with thruth has run its course guys
there is a line of what would call for an explanantion why one would cross it that far

 

[Dr.Drock]

JRK I have a question.

Why did GWB say there were no WMD's, when as you say, it's obvious there were?

Did the american media force him to say it?

Did democrats force him to say it?