Remember, it was Bush and the GOP who tricked this country into invading Iraq. PERIOD!

[deanrd]

Actually it was the left wing media and democrats (and the CIA?) who tricked the public into believing that the Iraqi invasion was about WMD's. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an illegal executive order. Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless country when he was caught with his pants down. President Bush carefully laid out the conditions before congress and gave Saddam about a year to comply with U.N. Sanctions. Every congressional member had access to the same intelligence and the CIA seemed to agree with former president Bill Clinton that Saddam was developing WMD's. Congress approved sending Troops to Iraq and then democrats (and their minions in the left wing media) undermined the mission when they thought they could gain some political momentum. It's a tragic example of what can happen when the media becomes a propaganda arm of the democrat party and the CIA becomes a willing agent of left wing political propaganda.

You gotta have links to make your story plausible.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is in the interests of the nation to point out when it is making a mistake. Saying that something is wrong when it is wrong is neither propaganda nor anti-American.
"America, right or wrong" IS propaganda, and absurd to boot.

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton orders air attack on Iraq - Dec 16, 1998 - HISTORY.com




WATCH THIS LEWINSKY NIGHT VIDEO to understand where GW GOT those ideas about the covert chem, bio, nuclear programs in Iraq... And let @Rdean explain Clinton was not lying to the American people.

That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.

I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.


This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

 

[flacaltenn]

Clinton orders air attack on Iraq - Dec 16, 1998 - HISTORY.com




WATCH THIS LEWINSKY NIGHT VIDEO to understand where GW GOT those ideas about the covert chem, bio, nuclear programs in Iraq... And let @Rdean explain Clinton was not lying to the American people.

That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.

I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.


This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

 

[there4eyeM]

What happened in Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam was Saddam's fault, by definition.
Illegal acts, especially at the international level such as the 2003 i nvasion, usually beget undesirable effects. "W" and company did inestimable damage to America's reputation and standing in the world in addition to the horrendous results on the economy. Then there is the situation in the Middle East that gives new meaning to "fubar". History will show that this war crime was one of America's worst moments.

 

[Muhammed]

Remember, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush Sr. chased them back into Iraq. And rightfully so. We had treaties with Kuwait.

But he stopped at the border.

I hear that false narrative all over the internet.

 

[Muhammed]

Illegal acts, especially at the international level such as the 2003 i nvasion, usually beget undesirable effects.

Your ignorance is astoundiing. The invasion of Iraq by the coalition of UN member states was not illegal, jackass.

 

[Muhammed]

From an article in the Guardian:
"
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan



Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington

Wed 15 Sep 2004 21.28 EDTFirst published on Wed 15 Sep 2004 21.28 EDT


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."

Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions."

Annan's unsupported assertion is false and irrelevant.

 

[whitehall]

Actually it was the left wing media and democrats (and the CIA?) who tricked the public into believing that the Iraqi invasion was about WMD's. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea on an illegal executive order. Bill Clinton bombed a defenseless country when he was caught with his pants down. President Bush carefully laid out the conditions before congress and gave Saddam about a year to comply with U.N. Sanctions. Every congressional member had access to the same intelligence and the CIA seemed to agree with former president Bill Clinton that Saddam was developing WMD's. Congress approved sending Troops to Iraq and then democrats (and their minions in the left wing media) undermined the mission when they thought they could gain some political momentum. It's a tragic example of what can happen when the media becomes a propaganda arm of the democrat party and the CIA becomes a willing agent of left wing political propaganda.

You gotta have links to make your story plausible.

It doesn't take a genius to google Harry Truman and Korea (50,000 Americans in three years downgraded during the Clinton administration to 35,000) and even pop-educated libs should remember Bill Clinton carpet bombing of Bosnia and Yugoslavia. The congressional authorization of Troops in Iraq is no secret and WMD's are way down on the list.

 

[Penelope]

Dude Iraq is sooooo like 2003

Tell that to the vets who are maimed or have PTSD and the widows and those who grew up without a Dad or Mother.

 

[Penelope]

These threads are hilarious. Russia is stepping up their defense for a tyrant who uses chemical weapons on his own civilians, and the left is freaking out. Meanwhile the genocidal psychopathic leftists here keep murdering babies through abortion.

Maybe Trump should order some missile strikes on the abortion clinics too while we're at it. It's not like we're going to run out of cruise missiles.

Assad isn't using the chemical weapons, even Tucker Carlson agrees, funny how when Trump said he was going to pull out we have a chemical attack. Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons.

 

[JGalt]

These threads are hilarious. Russia is stepping up their defense for a tyrant who uses chemical weapons on his own civilians, and the left is freaking out. Meanwhile the genocidal psychopathic leftists here keep murdering babies through abortion.

Maybe Trump should order some missile strikes on the abortion clinics too while we're at it. It's not like we're going to run out of cruise missiles.

Assad isn't using the chemical weapons, even Tucker Carlson agrees, funny how when Trump said he was going to pull out we have a chemical attack. Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons.

Just because Tucker Carlson is on FOX news, does that mean that it's obligatory that I agree with everything he says?

You see, that's one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. We don't slavishly accept everything our media pundits tell us, without question. It's called "critical thinking".

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton orders air attack on Iraq - Dec 16, 1998 - HISTORY.com




WATCH THIS LEWINSKY NIGHT VIDEO to understand where GW GOT those ideas about the covert chem, bio, nuclear programs in Iraq... And let @Rdean explain Clinton was not lying to the American people.

That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.

I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.


This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

 

[rightwinger]

Illegal acts, especially at the international level such as the 2003 i nvasion, usually beget undesirable effects.

Your ignorance is astoundiing. The invasion of Iraq by the coalition of UN member states was not illegal, jackass.

Coalition of the willing?

What a joke. Most of our allies told Bush to go fuck himself. Even Canada

 

[flacaltenn]

That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.

I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.


This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?

That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.

I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.


This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

It was THEIR PROBLEM? Why? Saddam was accused of running a MASSIVE buildup of bio/chem/nuclear weapons? That would be a funny excuse for making it THEIR problem -- wouldn't it? Considering the evidence.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?

That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.

.

Saddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf War

Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine that

Bill Clinton never invaded

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

It was THEIR PROBLEM? Why? Saddam was accused of running a MASSIVE buildup of bio/chem/nuclear weapons? That would be a funny excuse for making it THEIR problem -- wouldn't it? Considering the evidence.

A HUGE buildup of bio/chem/nuclear weapons?

Dare I say........the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud

We should have allowed Hans Blix to complete his inspections. But Bush panicked and invaded before Blix could come back with an assessment of no threat

 

[flacaltenn]

No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?

That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.

.

Saddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf War

Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image

NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..

And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??

Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.

Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning

Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]

But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.

Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.

In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.


So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...

 

[rightwinger]

Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off

The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror

So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.

That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.

Yes, it worked

It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem

Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be

So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?

That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.

.

Saddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf War

Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image

NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..

And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??

Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.

Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning

Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]

But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.

Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.

In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.


So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...

The embargo worked as expected
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders

The invasion and nation building was a disaster