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

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks uncensored, your opposition is about the best affirmation I can receive!

Funny, I was just thinking that your opposition was the best affirmation JRK could receive....

 

[JRK]

We agree we are against the wars. Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run. I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel. Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

I don't support my stepsister smoking weed on weekends, yet she chooses to do it.

I support my stepsister as a person.

Is that obvious enough?

Disclaimer: I'm not equating weed smoking to being a soldier, just showing how stupid it is to say you HAVE to support a war to support soldiers. I'm sure plenty of americans who didn't support the war sent care packages etc to soldiers.

You liberals stay confused. If you do not try and create reasons as to why you are so desperate to portray Iraq as a failure no-one would have an issue with your feelings with the war
Your not like your anti war because your against killing
its like your anti war because GWB was the president
Your anti war because he said that SADDAM had WMDS (so did every-one else including Saddam his self)
Your anti-war because GWB said Saddam was trying to get yellow-cake, even though he was all ready sitting on 550 metric tons, shit whats that matter?
right?

 

[BlindBoo]

I never claimed any different
look at what point is this in your face troops you have failed like we told you you would stuff going to stop?

Murder is murder

We did not have a war going on in this country when we had more murders than Iraq did
Do you understand NOW that your obsession with claiming this war was a failure is your opinion?

Saddam is gone, done, dead
the country is stable
a republic has been born from those events

And as God as my witness you dis agree with that simple, accurate premise
Bud your on a level of desperation that the war in Iraq failed beyond words, in fact I dont what else to say to you

Dude get a life, PLEASE
for the people who love you, it dont matter any more okay?
as anti american as you are there is nothing else we have say to each other
just go away

Redrum. Redrum.

The troops have not failed. The leadership did.

Regime change in Iraq was not worth the life of one US soldier. Got that? Not one.

That's your opinion, the US senate and the president of the US dis agreed with you
The only people who failed are the ones who lied about the invasion and brought har to our great nation
remind you of any-one?

That would be the Bush Administration and their cheerleaders.

 

[Dr.Drock]

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

I don't support my stepsister smoking weed on weekends, yet she chooses to do it.

I support my stepsister as a person.

Is that obvious enough?

Disclaimer: I'm not equating weed smoking to being a soldier, just showing how stupid it is to say you HAVE to support a war to support soldiers. I'm sure plenty of americans who didn't support the war sent care packages etc to soldiers.

You liberals stay confused. If you do not try and create reasons as to why you are so desperate to portray Iraq as a failure no-one would have an issue with your feelings with the war
Your not like your anti war because your against killing
its like your anti war because GWB was the president
Your anti war because he said that SADDAM had WMDS (so did every-one else including Saddam his self)
Your anti-war because GWB said Saddam was trying to get yellow-cake, even though he was all ready sitting on 550 metric tons, shit whats that matter?
right?

Keep desperately trying to make this a partisan issue, I don't live in your partisan fantasy world. I've never voted for a single democrat in my entire life.

I'm against the war because of killing. I'm against the War in Libya (Obama's), I'm against the War in Afghanistan, I was for it in the beginning but I was never in favor of 10+ years of nation building.

I don't care if Saddam had WMD's or didn't, I don't give a damn about UN mandates, no conservative does. China has hundreds of nukes, we do nothing (and shouldn't).

Again, don't give a damn about UN mandates. I take the Constitution's sovereighnty seriously, so the UN can go **** themselves.

 

[BlindBoo]

ATF: Car Bomb Behind Michigan Blast That Injured Father, 2 Kids | Fox News

now who was it saying that there are no car bombs in the US and that we are far more stable than Iraq?

We avg 41 murders per day in this country people

Car bomb huh? Wow who were they targeting? How many did they kill?

wait---a man and his kids,,,,,,in the car?

Poor kids.

Dude you pathetic
none of this is a joke and every item you have used to run our troops and this country down, your going to get right back in your face
When you run down the success that is Iraq, you run down our troops anf the sacrifice they volunteered for
Just go away and be miserable else where
I feel sorry for you boo, I really do
Your smarter than this and there is people who love u that know it

What is pathetic is you try to equate that blast with the car combs the terrorist have been using in Iraq.

Your lies, only a simpleton would believe.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Thanks uncensored, your opposition is about the best affirmation I can receive!

Funny, I was just thinking that your opposition was the best affirmation JRK could receive....

I'm sure you do, you also think an Authorization to Use Force is a Declaration of War.

 

[BlindBoo]

All of this means nothing.

The war was a failure. Iran grows closer to Iraq every day, and our soldiers have died for nothing

We agree we are against the wars. Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run. I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel. Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

First lie. Again the Iraq war may be over for US combat soldiers however the sectarian violence still plagues the Iraqis.

Second lie. Of course you can support the troops(especially the returning damaged ones) while not supporting the invasion and occupation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sure you do, you also think an Authorization to Use Force is a Declaration of War.

Not only that, I think water is wet....

 

[NoNukes]

All of this means nothing.

The war was a failure. Iran grows closer to Iraq every day, and our soldiers have died for nothing

We agree we are against the wars. Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run. I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel. Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

We supported the troops by not wanting them there in the first place.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Nothing to do with Cheney...it's more about you than anything.

Of course it is. What really bugs you is that I'm right.

What really bugs me is you're a dick.

Yeah, I definitely hit a nerve with you on this one.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Damn I miss it. I though for sure Dick was getting a check. Okay bonus round...Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Idontnoha?

I used to have a Youtube link to the Al Jazeera coverage of the presser. You've never seen anybody look so uncomfortable in your life. It's a shame Americans didn't get to see it. Personally I blame the liberal media for blacking the entire thing out.

That's Grand Ayatollah Sistani, peace be upon him, on the right and Grand Ayatollah Bakr Al-Sadr, the father of Moqtada Al-Sadr*, peace be upon them, on the right.

*The guy Bush was calling a "terrorist." So that's Cheney standing under a picture of an Iranian Ayatollah and the father of somebody running an anti-American terrorist group that killed American soldiers and standing next to an Ayatollah whose orgganisation's military wing was trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and contains former Revolutionary guard members and who fought for Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. that's the kind of delicious situation that the liberal media could have had a lot of fun with. Wall-to-wall blanket coverage, the whole thing on playback loops for a few days, but no, for some reason the liberal media refused to touch the whole event.

Nah, that's just Dick's Grand look. He was probably doing business with the Iranians when it was prohibited so he might have known them anyway...

The Liberal Media you refer to is myth. American media is just that, American media for mer'kins consumers. We have this nice big fued going between the Dems and Rebs to distract while the real decisions are still made in back room deals between the real powerbrokers.

The Liberal Media. Were they liberal when they helped the Bush Administration morph america's outrage at the 9-11 attacks into an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab nation that was not a significant threat to us or had anything to do with the attacks. But are they really state controlled owellion proaganda outlets or just profit motivated corporations jumping on the attention bandwagon? Everybody loves to watch a good ...wait a minute, sorry I got to go, my favorite show is on.

Cya.

If there really was a liberal media that image would have been burned onto every American's brain like the moon landings. But then if it was it would make it much more difficult to gain popular support for the next country we invade.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Handing over the country to them at the official handover ceremony once they'd managed to get Bush to agree to pull all the troops out. This was the Iranians' moment of victory and the moment they got to rub America's --represented by the idiot Cheney -- nose in the whole thing. Or at least that's how the Arab media described it. The US media blacked the entire event out and didn't turn up to the press conference.

Damn I miss it. I though for sure Dick was getting a check. Okay bonus round...Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Idontnoha?

That picture probably is a fake, typical liberal myths about there in ability to cope with the real world and make rash decisions based on the facts

How about this one?

Here's the text that went with it :

U.S. President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, " I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country."



And here's how we viewed the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (that's the same Ayatollah and same organisation as the first humiliation photograph, just they changed the name of their group after they'd achieved their objective of an Islamic revolution in Iraq) :

28 March 2003
Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq

Washington -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a warning March


28 to two of Iraq's neighbors -- Syria and Iran -- not to interfere in


coalition efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.


[...]


He also warned the


Iranian-sponsored Badr Corps not to interfere with coalition military


operations inside Iraq lest its members be considered "as combatants."

[...]


Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the


direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."



Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq


So, from treating them as combatants who were trained and equipped and directed by Iran's (the central banker of terrorism) Islamic Revolutionary Guard to inviting their leader to the White house, shaking his hand in public and calling him "His Eminence" and saying he supports him! That smacks of appeasement to me. Maybe Bush is secretly French?




"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

M le Président Georges W Bush.
September 20th, 2001

 

[Dr.Drock]

I used to have a Youtube link to the Al Jazeera coverage of the presser. You've never seen anybody look so uncomfortable in your life. It's a shame Americans didn't get to see it. Personally I blame the liberal media for blacking the entire thing out.

That's Grand Ayatollah Sistani, peace be upon him, on the right and Grand Ayatollah Bakr Al-Sadr, the father of Moqtada Al-Sadr*, peace be upon them, on the right.

*The guy Bush was calling a "terrorist." So that's Cheney standing under a picture of an Iranian Ayatollah and the father of somebody running an anti-American terrorist group that killed American soldiers and standing next to an Ayatollah whose orgganisation's military wing was trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and contains former Revolutionary guard members and who fought for Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. that's the kind of delicious situation that the liberal media could have had a lot of fun with. Wall-to-wall blanket coverage, the whole thing on playback loops for a few days, but no, for some reason the liberal media refused to touch the whole event.

Nah, that's just Dick's Grand look. He was probably doing business with the Iranians when it was prohibited so he might have known them anyway...

The Liberal Media you refer to is myth. American media is just that, American media for mer'kins consumers. We have this nice big fued going between the Dems and Rebs to distract while the real decisions are still made in back room deals between the real powerbrokers.

The Liberal Media. Were they liberal when they helped the Bush Administration morph america's outrage at the 9-11 attacks into an invasion and occupation of an oil rich Arab nation that was not a significant threat to us or had anything to do with the attacks. But are they really state controlled owellion proaganda outlets or just profit motivated corporations jumping on the attention bandwagon? Everybody loves to watch a good ...wait a minute, sorry I got to go, my favorite show is on.

Cya.

If there really was a liberal media that image would have been burned onto every American's brain like the moon landings. But then if it was it would make it much more difficult to gain popular support for the next country we invade.

Couldn't possibly have been said any better.

Our media for the most part had no problem, or even asked big questions, about the War in Iraq until it had already been going on for years.

Similar to what you're seeing right now in terms of the american media and the War in Libya.

 

[JRK]

My god you libs have found every ounce of desperation to make sure you let our troops know how much you feel they have failed
what the **** is this about now?
I cannot imagine how far out of touch you guys are

What exactly is it this new set of allegations are tryng to say?
There is not one ounce of truth to any thing your saying any more
you called me a liar and have yet to post one example

THE WAR IS OVER
WE DID EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO
IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, STOP THE NEXT MARINE YOU SEE AND TELL HIM, BUT STOP LYING ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE US
THE TROOPS
THE MISSION

 

[JRK]

damn i miss it. I though for sure dick was getting a check. Okay bonus round...ayatollah sistani and ayatollah idontnoha?

that picture probably is a fake, typical liberal myths about there in ability to cope with the real world and make rash decisions based on the facts

how about this one?

here's the text that went with it :

U.s. President george w. Bush welcomes sayyed abdul-aziz al-hakim, leader of the supreme council for the islamic revolution in iraq, to the white house monday, dec. 4, 2006. Said the president, " i appreciate so very much his eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the united states supports his work and the work of the prime minister to unify the country."



and here's how we viewed the supreme council for the islamic revolution in iraq (that's the same ayatollah and same organisation as the first humiliation photograph, just they changed the name of their group after they'd achieved their objective of an islamic revolution in iraq) :

28 march 2003
rumsfeld warns syria, iranian badr corps not to interfere in iraq

washington -- defense secretary donald rumsfeld sent a warning march


28 to two of iraq's neighbors -- syria and iran -- not to interfere in


coalition efforts to topple saddam hussein's regime.


[...]


he also warned the


iranian-sponsored badr corps not to interfere with coalition military


operations inside iraq lest its members be considered "as combatants."

[...]


asked more about the badr corps, rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


supreme council on islamic revolution in iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by iran's islamic revolutionary


guard." as yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the


direct operational control of [u.s. Central command commander] general


[tommy] franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed badr corps members found


in iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."



rumsfeld warns syria, iranian badr corps not to interfere in iraq


so, from treating them as combatants who were trained and equipped and directed by iran's (the central banker of terrorism) islamic revolutionary guard to inviting their leader to the white house, shaking his hand in public and calling him "his eminence" and saying he supports him! That smacks of appeasement to me. Maybe bush is secretly french?




"either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

m le président georges w bush.
September 20th, 2001

you clowns are creating a series of events that have nothing to do with our mission
desperation? This goes beyond desperation

saddam?
Dead
weapons?
Gone
republic?
Working
war?
Over

what else was there suppose to be?

 

[kaz]

If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

You fundamentally don't understand the role of the military in this country. It is not the troops job to decide if they are deployed or what the mission is. That is the job of the legislative and executive branches. When the troops go, it is their job to kick ass and accomplish the mission. They have done that admirably given the parameters they had and the challenges they faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and ever other conflict they engaged in. I support them doing that, admire what they did, and thank them for what they accomplished in my behalf. If you think that's not supporting them then **** you all day long and twice on Sundays.

I want to change the mission. I want to leave conflicts that aren't ours. But while they are there, I do not want to tie their hands. I certainly don't want to tear them down to the direct benefit of the enemy they are fighting as you do. You are what's wrong, providing aid and comfort to the enemy so you can get more welfare from the government and get someone else to pay for your charity. I want a different way regardless of who's in the White House. You just want a Democrat in the White House. As I said, fundamentally different.

 

[kaz]

We agree we are against the wars. Where we differ is that I support the troops by supporting them and you and yours support the troops by heartening the enemy that if they keep it up we'll cut and run. I want a better solution, you want the Democrats behind the steering wheel. Amazing how two people with the same basic view on a situation can do it for night and day different reasons.

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

We supported the troops by not wanting them there in the first place.

Then you tore them down by assuring the enemy they weren't supported at home. That you did that showed your not wanting them in the first place had nothing to do with them. As did your suddenly being OK with it all when you finally got the steering wheel back.

 

[JRK]

To start with the war in IRAQ is over, okay?
If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

We supported the troops by not wanting them there in the first place.

Then you tore them down by assuring the enemy they weren't supported at home. That you did that showed your not wanting them in the first place had nothing to do with them. As did your suddenly being OK with it all when you finally got the steering wheel back.

There is no way any person can state the president is a liar, the troops that went there by choice should not be there is supporting anything but the terrorist You read those threads this guy and a couple of others have wrote about events that have nothing to do with our mission in Iraq and what the troops were doing
the terrorist could not do a better job. I am ashamed I allowed my self to be sucked in that far to there fantasy woorld

 

[kaz]

We supported the troops by not wanting them there in the first place.

Then you tore them down by assuring the enemy they weren't supported at home. That you did that showed your not wanting them in the first place had nothing to do with them. As did your suddenly being OK with it all when you finally got the steering wheel back.

There is no way any person can state the president is a liar, the troops that went there by choice should not be there is supporting anything but the terrorist You read those threads this guy and a couple of others have wrote about events that have nothing to do with our mission in Iraq and what the troops were doing
the terrorist could not do a better job. I am ashamed I allowed my self to be sucked in that far to there fantasy woorld

I supported Reagan when he went into Lebanon. Over time I came to realize what a mistake getting into all those conflicts is. There is everything right with learning as you go along. Well done.

 

[JRK]

If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops
They are there because they choose to be there, by choice this means they support what we are doing
If your against what we are doing then what is the difference in the troop and me? except for there service?

You fundamentally don't understand the role of the military in this country. It is not the troops job to decide if they are deployed or what the mission is. That is the job of the legislative and executive branches. When the troops go, it is their job to kick ass and accomplish the mission. They have done that admirably given the parameters they had and the challenges they faced in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and ever other conflict they engaged in. I support them doing that, admire what they did, and thank them for what they accomplished in my behalf. If you think that's not supporting them then **** you all day long and twice on Sundays.

I want to change the mission. I want to leave conflicts that aren't ours. But while they are there, I do not want to tie their hands. I certainly don't want to tear them down to the direct benefit of the enemy they are fighting as you do. You are what's wrong, providing aid and comfort to the enemy so you can get more welfare from the government and get someone else to pay for your charity. I want a different way regardless of who's in the White House. You just want a Democrat in the White House. As I said, fundamentally different.

**** you?
we are done in Iraq
you have left the reservation also, even if I did not work 60+ hours a week and have for 35 years, its none of our ******* business if I was on welfare
man the truth hurts to the bone
those kids who by choice joined the US marines after 3/2002 knew where they were headed
You tell me they did not know that? what your saying is those kids are not smart enough to realize that if you joined after 3-2003, Iraq maybe your new home
Are you kidding me? and then attack my character?
Dude if you do not like the truth, you might want to re evaluate the way you see these things, dont blame me for the way you feel

Those kids joined knowing whee it was headed
thats