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

[JRK]

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

Not everyone sees this as a mistake
ask your self why has there been no polls done on this sense the agreement beetween the US and the Iraqi govt on ending our part in that war in 2012?

My views aren't based on poll results, so I don't have to ask myself anything. Get government out of the energy business both for securing oil overseas and restricting domestic exploration, production and refinement. Let a free market work on it and set a market price. And pull our troops out of the middle east completely. Eventually we should only have troops permanently in US territory.

The Republicans want to make every terrorist our enemy and hunt them down and kill them fighting the rest of the world to do it. The Democrats want us to sit and only defend ourselves only as the international liberal community is comfortable with. As long as we are there, I want to follow the Republican path. Hunt them down and kill them. But I am going to continue to ask why we are actually there when there is a better way. Free markets, what Republicans claim to support, and continually fail to do.

The GOP has had no power sense Jan 2007, how could they fail to support anything?

The day people stop flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, we will get out of the removing of terror and terror supporting groups from the ME

 

[Dr.Drock]

Our troops joined because our country was at war.

That patriotism does not justify Bush's terrible mistakes.

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Drock
I am thru with this
Every-one has made there minds up and in the end the kids who served in Iraq are the ones got hurt
I thought a little dose of the truth wouldn't hurt

I was wrong

So...it was all about the troops that served in Iraq?
That's what the whole discussion is about as far as you're concerned?
Not the implications of the war to the two countries involved - politically, economically, socially?
We must support the war uncritically because a lot of soldiers went over there and a whole heap got hurt?

To make it worse, you twist your own logic (as confused as it is) by claiming that any servicemen that are against the war somehow aren't real vets but if they support the war they're true servicemen.

Further, you haven't got the balls to take your own challenge by being prepared to argue with any of those veterans that are against the whole sorry mess.

You also dismiss out of hand any link that disagrees with your own preconception.

One of the things I like about this site is that I've learnt a lot from having to research responses to other posters, I've even had my position changed from time to time.

Try to be a bit more open-minded and you might be surprised what happens...just because someone says it on tv doesn't make it true and just because someone has a different political leaning to you doesn't make all of their opinions wrong.

You know, despite what you apparently think, you might even find that there are plenty of 'Liberals' that approved of the war and conversely plenty of 'Conservatives' that disagree with it.

went to this web site in which these national garud troops were against the war, what do you think they need donations for?
re search?
you claim I do not have the balls to argue?
what am I suppose to be arguing?
there was cliams there was no weapons
why argue that? its not true
there are calims I have said you do not support the war you can still support the troops
makes no sense to me, after 2003 anyone who joined the marines knew they wouls probably end up in Iraq
kind of makes sense they support what we DID there also
any way thats your business, but I dis agree
thats my right

"went to this web site in which these national garud troops were against the war,"

The first time you said this you were wrong and I provided proof by specifically giving you a link to the members list.

Now that you're saying it a second time, having already been given proof of the exact opposite of what you said the first time, proves you're just flat out lying.

Desperation, sorry JRK, you'll never convince the majority of americans that our warmongering in Iraq is as awesome as you think it is.

 

[JRK]

I'll ask one more time and please answer this honestly;

If someone doesn't support the Iraq war are they anti-soldier and anti-america?

Drock
I am thru with this
Every-one has made there minds up and in the end the kids who served in Iraq are the ones got hurt
I thought a little dose of the truth wouldn't hurt

I was wrong

Yes, you were wrong, it is not the truth.

whats not the truth
calling a man a liar is childish and in person can be un healthy unless u can back it up
Me, I see the child side of it
so, what have I said that is not the truth

 

[JakeStarkey]

Calling you a liar, JRK, when you repeatedly lie is not childish. It is an adult telling a childish poster that no one is buying your crap. Get over yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Libya is not an example of neo-con imperialism. Not all intervention is neo-conservatism of the right wing at work, and Libya was not an example of neo-cons fast on the draw.

What I did like about the intervention (and I wish Bush had done this in Afghanistan) was the adroit mixture of soft and hard power there, and certainly in the pushing our allies out front.

 

[Dr.Drock]

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Libya is not an example of neo-con imperialism. Not all intervention is neo-conservatism of the right wing at work, and Libya was not an example of neo-cons fast on the draw.

What I did like about the intervention (and I wish Bush had done this in Afghanistan) was the adroit mixture of soft and hard power there, and certainly in the pushing our allies out front.

Libya is just a miniature version of Iraq. We're supporting monsters against monsters, the anti-Qaddafi commanders even openly admit their fighters have Al-Qaeda ties. Also it's not hard to find plenty of websites alleging all the human rights violations of the ppl we're supporting (burning ppl alive, dragging ppl behind cars, all kinds of other torture).

Maybe Iraq isn't the best comparison, the better comparison for the current situation in Libya is when we supported a certain bearded fella in Afghanistan from 1979-1985.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our troops joined because our country was at war.

That patriotism does not justify Bush's terrible mistakes.

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

Not everyone sees this as a mistake
ask your self why has there been no polls done on this sense the agreement beetween the US and the Iraqi govt on ending our part in that war in 2012?

The Status of Forces agreement you're referring to was made in December of 2008.

I found 12 polls SINCE THEN asking if the Iraq war was worth it, or whether it was right or wrong, or whether we achieved our goals.

UNANIMOUSLY, the polls said it was NOT worth it, WRONG, and we did NOT achieve our goals.

Iraq

So stop trolling.

 

[JRK]

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

Not everyone sees this as a mistake
ask your self why has there been no polls done on this sense the agreement beetween the US and the Iraqi govt on ending our part in that war in 2012?

The Status of Forces agreement you're referring to was made in December of 2008.

I found 12 polls SINCE THEN asking if the Iraq war was worth it, or whether it was right or wrong, or whether we achieved our goals.

UNANIMOUSLY, the polls said it was NOT worth it, WRONG, and we did NOT achieve our goals.

Iraq

So stop trolling.

who is trolling?
do you understand the concept of ignore
the only trolls and the only spammers are the ones who do not like the threads about the war showing how many myths there are
go away and you will not be missed

 

[NoNukes]

Agreed. Nor does it justify Obama's continuing them.

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..

 

[JRK]

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..

Do what?
Look did you forget this vote in 1998?

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

 

[Old Rocks]

Things are so peaceful in Iraq. How many a week are dying there right now in continued civil warfare? You call this winning?

JRK, no matter how you lie about it. all know we went in on the basis of lies. And it is worse, overall, now, for the Iraqi people than before we went in. Hussein got his just deserts, but we killed more Iraqis and created more havoc there than he ever did.

Iraq was and is a neo-con **** up.

 

[Dr.Drock]

He is bringing troops home, winding down Afghanistan. Obama inherited a bad hand, and has probably played it as well as could be expected. We should not be using our troops to support Big Business pursuit of oil.

I get a kick of JRK, the suffering neo-con progressive right wing imperialist, trying to justify his losing position. He will never change, but he is fun to read.

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..

No, not in any sense.

It was his idea of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Always an odd coincidence that we're always "saving" people in oil rich nations..........................

 

[NoNukes]

He didn't inherit Libya, that's another example of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..

No, not in any sense.

It was his idea of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Always an odd coincidence that we're always "saving" people in oil rich nations..........................

What coincidence?

How would it have looked if we had not supported the Brits on this one?

 

[Dr.Drock]

In a sense, he did inherit Libya in that he inherited a situation where he had to go in with our allies, after some of them went into Iraq and Afghanistan with America..

No, not in any sense.

It was his idea of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Always an odd coincidence that we're always "saving" people in oil rich nations..........................

What coincidence?

How would it have looked if we had not supported the Brits on this one?

How would it look if we didn't attack Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations? China? North Korea? Uganda? Rwanda? South Africa?

Oh wait, half those countries are our pals.

The gov't in Libya isn't the constitutional job of the US gov't if they aren't attacking us, and they aren't and never could have. Paying for warmongering in Libya isn't the job the of U.S. taxpayer.

 

[Photonic]

No, not in any sense.

It was his idea of neo-con adventurous warmongering.

Always an odd coincidence that we're always "saving" people in oil rich nations..........................

What coincidence?

How would it have looked if we had not supported the Brits on this one?

How would it look if we didn't attack Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations? China? North Korea? Uganda? Rwanda? South Africa?

Oh wait, half those countries are our pals.

The gov't in Libya isn't the constitutional job of the US gov't if they aren't attacking us, and they aren't and never could have. Paying for warmongering in Libya isn't the job the of U.S. taxpayer.

Well, Libya has a lot of oil, thus it's in national Interest to make sure that oil gets sold to us.


Yea, they were no threat to us by far. Look what happened to them in just the first 2 or 3 days. Their Air Force and radar capability was crushed overnight.

 

[JRK]

Things are so peaceful in Iraq. How many a week are dying there right now in continued civil warfare? You call this winning?

JRK, no matter how you lie about it. all know we went in on the basis of lies. And it is worse, overall, now, for the Iraqi people than before we went in. Hussein got his just deserts, but we killed more Iraqis and created more havoc there than he ever did.

Iraq was and is a neo-con **** up.

How many in US are being murdered this week? we average 41 a day
What lies?
every persona who has called me a liar has yet to back it, I guess maybe your all own the same agenda
all of you be added to my ignore list

What Iraq was is your opinion
The Iraqis were killed mostly bu Saddam prior to and Al Qaeda After we invaded

Al-Qaeda is Sunni, and often attacked the Iraqi Shia majority in an attempt to incite sectarian violence and greater chaos in the country.[114] Al-Zarqawi purportedly declared an all-out war on Shiites[115] while claiming responsibility for Shiite mosque bombings.[116] The same month, a statement claiming to be by AQI rejected as "fake" a letter allegedly written by al-Zawahiri, in which he appears to question the insurgents' tactic of indiscriminately attacking Shiites in Iraq.[117] In a December 2007 video, al-Zawahiri defended the Islamic State in Iraq, but distanced himself from the attacks against civilians committed by "hypocrites and traitors existing among the ranks".[118]
U.S. and Iraqi officials accused AQI of trying to slide Iraq into a full-scale civil war between Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Sunni Arabs, with an orchestrated campaign of civilian massacres and a number of provocative attacks against high-profile religious targets.[119] With attacks such as the 2003 Imam Ali Mosque bombing, the 2004 Day of Ashura and Karbala and Najaf bombings, the 2006 first al-Askari Mosque bombing in Samarra, the deadly single-day series of bombings in which at least 215 people were killed in Baghdad's Shiite district of Sadr City, and the second al-Askari bombing in 2007, they provoked Shiite militias to unleash a wave of retaliatory attacks, resulting in death squad-style killings and spiraling further sectarian violence which escalated in 2006 and brought Iraq to the brink of violent anarchy in 2007.[120] In 2008, sectarian bombings blamed on al-Qaeda killed at least 42 people at the Imam Husayn Shrine in Karbala in March, and at least 51 people at a bus stop in Baghdad in June.
Why would we be killing Iraqis?

For gods sake would you liberals do your DD
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

What coincidence?

How would it have looked if we had not supported the Brits on this one?

How would it look if we didn't attack Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations? China? North Korea? Uganda? Rwanda? South Africa?

Oh wait, half those countries are our pals.

The gov't in Libya isn't the constitutional job of the US gov't if they aren't attacking us, and they aren't and never could have. Paying for warmongering in Libya isn't the job the of U.S. taxpayer.

Well, Libya has a lot of oil, thus it's in national Interest to make sure that oil gets sold to us.


Yea, they were no threat to us by far. Look what happened to them in just the first 2 or 3 days. Their Air Force and radar capability was crushed overnight.

Same as Iraq
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

raq has not provided an adequate declaration of its prior production of nerve agent VX. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
Inspectors have found a “laboratory quantity” of thiodiglycol, a precursor of mustard gas. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
6,500 missing chemical rockets remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
Iraq has not provided evidence to substantiate its claim that it destroyed 8,500 liters of anthrax [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
650kg of bacterial growth media remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
Iraq has been developing Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah missiles with a range beyond the 150km limit. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
380 rocket engines were smuggled into Iraq the previous month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
Iraq had provided the names of only 400 of the estimated 3,500 Iraqi scientists. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003] Iraqi scientists are refusing private interviews with UN inspectors. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]
ElBaradei's report to the UN -

Hans Blix

I have been accused of spamming
this is in response to the non stop statements that Bush is liar, yet these comments are really the same he was saying
who was lying?
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com

 

[DontBeStupid]

1,000 tons of chemical agents from the Iraq-Iran War remain unaccounted for. [UNITED NATIONS, 1/27/2003]

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. [George Bush, March 17, 2003]

Tell me you see the difference between those two comments.

Nah, I doubt you'll see it. I'll help you.

Blix was saying the chemical agents weren't accounted for. He said that about a lot of stuff. He never claimed Saddam had them, he just claimed they were unaccounted for. Bush, though, claimed Saddam HAD them in 2003. AND because Saddam HAD them, we must invade and invade now.

Big difference there bub.