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

[JRK]

Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.

"A peer-reviewed study in PLoS Medicine, based on IBC data, provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Feb 2011"

If you dispute these numbers, feel free to share your assessment and methodology.

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

Blind Boo if you go thru life and do not understand the tool called "root cause" you will never make it as far as you could
Why is a tire flat?
root cause every time will tell you because there is no air in it

why did any-one die in the Iraqi war?
because in 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait
because 19 insane Saudis used passenger jets as scud missiles in 2001
when we did not finish him off in 1991 then he was told what to do or else
the or else was not enforced until 2001

Saddam does not invade Kuwait
no war
no UN resolutions
no 9-11, no reason to take out the big stick
no-one dies
Its simple

 

[konradv]

If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?

How or why do you think that success in Iraq = lower gas prices?
Talk about a non-sequitur.

FYI:
Oil prices are up because of instability in Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and other ME states.
You can try to connect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest. If we'd done that, the losses from the other hotspots wouldn't be so damaging. Another connection is that we spent all that money ousting Saddam and baby sitting a new democracy, when the job should have been done by the Iraqis themselves, like in Egypt, Tunisia and hopefully Libya.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If Iraq was such a success, why are we seeing gas prices skyrocket?

How or why do you think that success in Iraq = lower gas prices?
Talk about a non-sequitur.
FYI:
Oil prices are up because of instability in Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and other ME states.
You can try to connect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

Or was is it the disembodied voice of Rush Limbaugh telling you "What he really means is the United Stated killed over a hundred thousand Iraqis"

Blind Boo if you go thru life and do not understand the tool called "root cause" you will never make it as far as you could
Why is a tire flat?
root cause every time will tell you because there is no air in it

why did any-one die in the Iraqi war?
because in 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait
because 19 insane Saudis used passenger jets as scud missiles in 2001
when we did not finish him off in 1991 then he was told what to do or else
the or else was not enforced until 2001

Saddam does not invade Kuwait
no war
no UN resolutions
no 9-11, no reason to take out the big stick
no-one dies
Its simple

So you're saying the United States invasion and occupation could be the 'root cause' of the sectarian violence that killed over 100,000 civilians in Iraq and that the US forces did not actually kill the 100,000?

It's just like the right to put words into their oponents mouths and then badger them to death with it. If one thinks the US interventionism in the ME was the motivating factor for the terrorist to attack us on 9-11, to the Pseudo-cons you're blaming America for 9-11.

Thanks go to George H.W. Bush then. Because when his trading parnter Saddam Hussein asked our embassador to Iraq what was the US position on the ongoing dispute between Kuwait and Iraq, instead of saying we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts and said instead we will defend Kuwait as if it were our 51st state, it seems likely that Saddam never would have tried to conquer Kuwait.

But then you could always go back to pseudo-conservative Hero, Ronnie Raygun, because without Ronnie, Saddam would never have had the technology needed to produce advanced WMD in the first place.

But then why did Ronnie feel like he had to take Iraq off the list of Nations who Support Terrorist? ........(it's never ends).........as to why they dumped all that tea in the harbor?

 

[konradv]

How or why do you think that success in Iraq = lower gas prices?
Talk about a non-sequitur.
FYI:
Oil prices are up because of instability in Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and other ME states.
You can try to connect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Ergo, a failure from the get-go. Keeping ourselves in oil should have been the ONLY reason for the invasion. Even the French wouldn't have helped us with our war for independence, if we hadn't shown the the desire and ability to do it for ourselves. They also didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but for national interest, i.e. weakening Great Britain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Ergo, a failure from the get-go.

One can only imagine the mental gyymnastics one has to go through to reach this conclusion.

 

[BlindBoo]

How or why do you think that success in Iraq = lower gas prices?
Talk about a non-sequitur.
FYI:
Oil prices are up because of instability in Egypt, Lybia, Saudi Arabia and other ME states.
You can try to connect that to the invasion of Iraq if you'd like, but you can't do it in 50,000 words or less.

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Hahaha. Without it they wouldn't have made up the other reaons!

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

"The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched-and untouchable-because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course-with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq-and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq's most valuable asset-its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves-are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies."

How And Why US Encouraged Looting In Iraq

But I do agree with you. The rising price of crude oil today has little to do with the Iraq invasion and occupation's failure, because one of the successes was keeping Iraqis oil business in business.

 

[konradv]

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Ergo, a failure from the get-go.

One can only imagine the mental gyymnastics one has to go through to reach this conclusion.

What took mental gymnastics was the notion that Saddam was an "immediate threat" to us. That was false on the face of it. Bush lied about it and Congress was too weak-kneed to call him on it.

 

[konradv]

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Hahaha. Without it they wouldn't have made up the other reaons!

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

"The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched-and untouchable-because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course-with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq-and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq's most valuable asset-its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves-are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies."

How And Why US Encouraged Looting In Iraq

But I do agree with you. The rising price of crude oil today has little to do with the Iraq invasion and occupation's failure, because one of the successes was keeping Iraqis oil business in business.

Hmmm..., bailing out U.S. companies is bad, but keeping a foreigners in business is good? We saved them from a madman, why would Bush not even get us our just due?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The connection is easy. The ONLY reason for going into Iraq would be to get inside track on their oil, i.e. important national interest.

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

One of these deals with a strategic and economic resource vital to the future of Iraq.
The rest do not. :shrug:

 

[JRK]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

Are you nuts?
WMDs? where still there from the 80s
over 500 of them
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and many stated they left Iraq in the 18 months that we gave saddam to do the right thing
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
the cost of the war was never shipped to anyone but GWB? Why would you say that?
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

Brain dead? dude do not make such fool of yourself

 

[BlindBoo]

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

One of these deals with a strategic and economic resource vital to the future of Iraq.
The rest do not. :shrug:

As the occupying force we were responsible for keeping law and order in the streets for everyone not just for what we thought was important. Planning, Education, Industry, Information were also vital for the future of Iraq.

 

[M14 Shooter]

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

One of these deals with a strategic and economic resource vital to the future of Iraq.
The rest do not. :shrug:

As the occupying force we were responsible for keeping law and order in the streets for everyone not just for what we thought was important.

Limited resources. Have to prioritize.

 

[BlindBoo]

Except that it wasn't. It wasn't ANY of the reasons.
Thus, there's no way to argue that high gas prices illustrates that we have not succeeded in Iraq.

Hahaha. Without it they wouldn't have made up the other reaons!

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

"The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched-and untouchable-because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course-with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq-and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq's most valuable asset-its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves-are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies."

How And Why US Encouraged Looting In Iraq

But I do agree with you. The rising price of crude oil today has little to do with the Iraq invasion and occupation's failure, because one of the successes was keeping Iraqis oil business in business.

Hmmm..., bailing out U.S. companies is bad, but keeping a foreigners in business is good? We saved them from a madman, why would Bush not even get us our just due?

I never said that I agreed with what happened, but I believe that is what happened and that the whole Iraq invasion/occupation has little to do with the oil prices going up. Bush simple doesn't/didn't answer to us (normal ordinary US citizens).

 

[konradv]

Hahaha. Without it they wouldn't have made up the other reaons!

....US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

"The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched-and untouchable-because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course-with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq-and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq's most valuable asset-its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves-are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies."

How And Why US Encouraged Looting In Iraq

But I do agree with you. The rising price of crude oil today has little to do with the Iraq invasion and occupation's failure, because one of the successes was keeping Iraqis oil business in business.

Hmmm..., bailing out U.S. companies is bad, but keeping a foreigners in business is good? We saved them from a madman, why would Bush not even get us our just due?

I never said that I agreed with what happened, but I believe that is what happened and that the whole Iraq invasion/occupation has little to do with the oil prices going up. Bush simple doesn't/didn't answer to us (normal ordinary US citizens).

Didn't say it did. Just said we'd be sitting pretty, if we'd taken our due. It's not like we got anything out of the deal. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, despite mushroom cloud allusions and was really the Iraqis' responsibiltiy. Our ONLY interest should have been oil.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

Are you nuts?
WMDs? where still there from the 80s
over 500 of them
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and many stated they left Iraq in the 18 months that we gave saddam to do the right thing
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
the cost of the war was never shipped to anyone but GWB? Why would you say that?
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

Brain dead? dude do not make such fool of yourself

The last of chemical weapons were all used on the Kurds by Saddam. When we went in, there were none left.

And yes........Bush Jr. DID leave the cost of the war off the budget, because he didn't want us to know how much money was being spent on it.

Oh.......and FWIW, I served in the US Navy from 1982 through 2002, so yeah......most of what I know about Iraq is pretty accurate.

 

[BlindBoo]

One of these deals with a strategic and economic resource vital to the future of Iraq.
The rest do not. :shrug:

As the occupying force we were responsible for keeping law and order in the streets for everyone not just for what we thought was important.

Limited resources. Have to prioritize.

I think it was more a time limit. They couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions. Turkey didn't allow troop movements at the last minute.

It was a political decision. It was not left up to the military.

frontline: the invasion of iraq: interviews: james fallows | PBS

The Army, by contrast, was saying that beating Saddam Hussein was only part of the job. You needed then to think about what would happen afterwards, and towards that end, you needed more people than you would in the smallest possible expeditionary force.

Therefore, there was a kind of bidding game that went on between the civilian leadership and the Army, where the Army and its allies in the other forces were saying, "We'd like about 400,000 troops to go in." Rumsfeld's idea was more like 75,000. Through a process of negotiation, the U.S. finally went to war with the low 200,000s of troops in Iraq.


So the bottom line was--?

The bottom line of the tensions between Rumsfeld and the military was that the force went in at a much smaller level than the uniformed military had been recommending, and a larger level than Rumsfeld would have ideally preferred.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hmmm..., bailing out U.S. companies is bad, but keeping a foreigners in business is good? We saved them from a madman, why would Bush not even get us our just due?

I never said that I agreed with what happened, but I believe that is what happened and that the whole Iraq invasion/occupation has little to do with the oil prices going up. Bush simple doesn't/didn't answer to us (normal ordinary US citizens).

Didn't say it did. Just said we'd be sitting pretty, if we'd taken our due. It's not like we got anything out of the deal. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, despite mushroom cloud allusions and was really the Iraqis' responsibiltiy. Our ONLY interest should have been oil.

Depend on who "We" is. Haliburton for example has done exceptionally well over the past 10 years. Blackwater is another example of a "we" that did really well in Iraq.

But for the most part I think "We" got fucked by the whole Iraq invasion/occupation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As the occupying force we were responsible for keeping law and order in the streets for everyone not just for what we thought was important.

Limited resources. Have to prioritize.

I think it was more a time limit. They couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions.

Yeah. That's it. Secure the oil minisrty so the weapons inspectors can't do their job.


Tell me:
Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?
What prompted Hans Blix to state, in February, that Iraq "has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"?