What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Political history of invading Iraq

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
1) US senate gives Bush the green light, October 2002
Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

2) Blix gives report
This report of February 14 and the protests of February 16 appear to have created reluctance in some of the members of the Security Council over the proposed war on Iraq. A second resolution was being drafted with the intention that it would find Iraq in "material breach" and the "serious consequences" of Resolution 1441 should be implemented.

Blix expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine[citation needed]. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said[citation needed]. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."[citation needed]

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

Blix earler states
UN inspection reports provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs, thousand of tons of known chemical agents, empty chemical warheads (including an empty Sakr-18 chemical warhead) discovered subsequent to Iraq's declaration, and stocks of thiodiglycol (a precursor of mustard gas).



Read more: Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) - Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) -

3-2003 we invade

2006 the DOD presents congress prrof that the 02 approval of war was legal

2006 The DOD prsents congress the proof that Saddam has lied and did not destroy WMDs has he was bound by UN resolve had mandate
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

I have been called a liar on this matter
there it is
not my words
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,326
Reaction score
55,344
Points
2,190
So is Blix a genius or a liar?

Why did Bush ignore his advice to hold off the invasion so that he could prove there were no WMDs?

The decision to invade Iraq was the biggest strategic blunder of our generation

Followed by the blunder of occupation
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
So is Blix a genius or a liar?

Why did Bush ignore his advice to hold off the invasion so that he could prove there were no WMDs?

The decision to invade Iraq was the biggest strategic blunder of our generation

Followed by the blunder of occupation

Thats your opinion
Iraq was a part of un doing the world that had got out of control. Saddam was given years to do the right thing
Your opinion I respect, but it does not change the information that was used to decide to invade after 18 months after 9-11
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,326
Reaction score
55,344
Points
2,190
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,866
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Bush admitted there were no WMD's in a December 2005 press conference.
 

grunt11b

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
4,649
Reaction score
501
Points
88
Location
In Reality
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror

Which the current president is more than happy to continue doing I might add.
 

grunt11b

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
4,649
Reaction score
501
Points
88
Location
In Reality
Bush admitted there were no WMD's in a December 2005 press conference.

Or course there wasn't, we gave them 3 months to move them to Syria before we invaded. But we did however manage to find yellow cake uranium over there, which is used to make WMD's. But you didn't see them speak much of it now did you? Because it was politically convenient for them to have you think that we invaded for no reason at all and Bush lied and blah blah blah.
Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror

thats an opinion that many dis agree with
thats all it is
BTW
is Saddam a problem?
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
Bush admitted there were no WMD's in a December 2005 press conference.

Or course there wasn't, we gave them 3 months to move them to Syria before we invaded. But we did however manage to find yellow cake uranium over there, which is used to make WMD's. But you didn't see them speak much of it now did you? Because it was politically convenient for them to have you think that we invaded for no reason at all and Bush lied and blah blah blah.
Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

I like Perry Rubio allot
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,326
Reaction score
55,344
Points
2,190
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror

Which the current president is more than happy to continue doing I might add.

Unfortunately, when Bush abandoned Afganistan to invade Iraq, he left an essential part of the war on terror unfinished. The decision by Obama to escalate Afghanistan and attack bases in Pakistan has done more to stifle the terrorists than killing 4000 Americans in Iraq
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,326
Reaction score
55,344
Points
2,190
Bush admitted there were no WMD's in a December 2005 press conference.

Or course there wasn't, we gave them 3 months to move them to Syria before we invaded. But we did however manage to find yellow cake uranium over there, which is used to make WMD's. But you didn't see them speak much of it now did you? Because it was politically convenient for them to have you think that we invaded for no reason at all and Bush lied and blah blah blah.
Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

LOL
It may be easy to move weapons to Syria (there is no evidence of this). What is impossible is to destroy all documentation and personal testimony that there were WMDs in Iraq. God knows Bush tried.....he looked at every record, every transcript looked for ANYONE to come forward to say...." I was involved in the manufacture or movement of WMDS"

Bush found nothing

Social Security in the red proves WMDs?
 
Last edited:
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
Bush admitted there were no WMD's in a December 2005 press conference.

Or course there wasn't, we gave them 3 months to move them to Syria before we invaded. But we did however manage to find yellow cake uranium over there, which is used to make WMD's. But you didn't see them speak much of it now did you? Because it was politically convenient for them to have you think that we invaded for no reason at all and Bush lied and blah blah blah.
Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

LOL
It may be easy to move weapons to Syria (there is no evidence of this). What is impossible is to destroy all documentation and personal testimony that there were WMDs in Iraq. God knows Bush tried.....he looked at every record, every transcript looked for ANYONE to come forward to say...." I was involved in the manufacture or movement of WMDS"

Bush found nothing

Social Security in the red proves WMDs?

In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn’t in the past?

WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?

A top Iraqi scientist involved in the country's development of a sophisticated nerve agent has turned himself in to American authorities, a US official said.
Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani

Top Iraqi scientist surrenders to US | Mail Online

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...EQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEJFEOrXtR1LxaPa3eNjNRLT16NVg

you want to try that again
 
Last edited:

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror

That's YOUR OPINION, and the second half of it is flat wrong! Predictably a lot of active and would-be Al Quaeda types promptly joined in the action in Iraq; they came from all over the Middle East and beyond; in fact, Saddam had invited them there ("Fedayeen Saddam", remember?) before the invasion began; if he was not involved with them before, he was certainly involved with them at that point if only as allies of convenience. All of these terrorists were people we would have had to kill somewhere, eventually, and this concentrated them in a place and situation where killing them in large numbers (which we did) was arguably easier. A dead terrorist is still a dead terrorist, whether he is killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or elsewhere., and we got quite a few of them in Iraq (including some really dangerous guys like Zarqawi, who we'd have had to deal with at some point anyway. I note that it is easier to kill rats you lure into the open, than to locate and kill the ones still hiding in their holes in the woodwork. On balance, I'd call that a successful contribution to the overall war on terror, one at least as important as killing Bin Laden, whose greatest real value was as a symbolic target, as he no longer exercised much effective operational control over a terrorist organization which has become increasingly decentralized.
 
OP
J

JRK

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
7,488
Reaction score
313
Points
48
Diverting the war on terror to invade Iraq was a strategic blunder that cost 4000 Americans their lives and set back the war on terror

That's YOUR OPINION, and the second half of it is flat wrong! Predictably a lot of active and would-be Al Quaeda types promptly joined in the action in Iraq; they came from all over the Middle East and beyond; in fact, Saddam had invited them there ("Fedayeen Saddam", remember?) before the invasion began; if he was not involved with them before, he was certainly involved with them at that point if only as allies of convenience. All of these terrorists were people we would have had to kill somewhere, eventually, and this concentrated them in a place and situation where killing them in large numbers (which we did) was arguably easier. A dead terrorist is still a dead terrorist, whether he is killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or elsewhere., and we got quite a few of them in Iraq (including some really dangerous guys like Zarqawi, who we'd have had to deal with at some point anyway. I note that it is easier to kill rats you lure into the open, than to locate and kill the ones still hiding in their holes in the woodwork. On balance, I'd call that a successful contribution to the overall war on terror, one at least as important as killing Bin Laden, whose greatest real value was as a symbolic target, as he no longer exercised much effective operational control over a terrorist organization which has become increasingly decentralized.


The left denies this
with respect to so much that was good reason to remove Saddam
this was the biggest reason
ush knew this would bring the rats out, it did
Good thread
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top