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

[J.E.D]

Another JRK Iraq war thread? Jesus Christ. Enough already. Are you trying to get out of paying a losing bet or something?

Look, it doesn't matter how much you cry about the war not being a failure or Bush not lying. The fact of the matter is, Iraq had no WMDs, no connection to AQ, and was not a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. We never should have been there. This will be Bush's legacy. Deal with it and move on.

 

[J.E.D]

I'm beginning to think that JRK is actually GW Bush.

 

[8537]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

You avoided my question.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.

Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"

 

[DontBeStupid]

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War.

Having them and using them in the 1980s is not proof that he had them and was going to use them in 2003.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

And you still don't get it. No shock there.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Iraq had very little capability to even defend itself from it's neighbors let alone attack America. There was absolutely no reason to invade, conquer, kill and subjugate the people of Iraq. We did exactly to Iraq..what we were afraid of Al Qaeda doing to us.

And there's no shame from the people that cheered this on.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

You avoided my question.

No I answered it.

It would look the exact same as us not invading those other countries I listed, completely meaningless, nobody was calling for war in Libya before it happened out of nowhere.

 

[elvis]

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.

Iraq had very little capability to even defend itself from it's neighbors let alone attack America. There was absolutely no reason to invade, conquer, kill and subjugate the people of Iraq. We did exactly to Iraq..what we were afraid of Al Qaeda doing to us.

And there's no shame from the people that cheered this on.

what makes you think Bush wasn't manipulated by Cheney, rumsfeld, Perle, etc?

 

[J.E.D]

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.

Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"

It's a good thing FDR had competent advisers around him who didn't rely on, and push unreliable and unproven evidence before sending American men and women off to die. Bush's legacy - unprovoked war, missed Bin Laden, tax cuts for the rich and the worst job creation numbers in history.

 

[elvis]

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.

Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"

It's a good thing FDR had competent advisers around him who didn't rely on, and push unreliable and unproven evidence before sending American men and women off to die. Bush's legacy - unprovoked war, missed Bin Laden, tax cuts for the rich and the worst job creation numbers in history.

unreliable and unproven evidence? an entire fleet was destroyed. Gee that was tough to prove.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Iraq had very little capability to even defend itself from it's neighbors let alone attack America. There was absolutely no reason to invade, conquer, kill and subjugate the people of Iraq. We did exactly to Iraq..what we were afraid of Al Qaeda doing to us.

And there's no shame from the people that cheered this on.

what makes you think Bush wasn't manipulated by Cheney, rumsfeld, Perle, etc?

What makes you think he was?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

And one day you will find the link that explains how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him.

Until then you have nothing but empty words accusing him of being a lair......bub

 

[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.

And one day you will find the link that explains how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him.

Wow. It was so recently and yet you have already forgotten how pissed France was at us. "Freedom Fries" ring a bell?

 

[JRK]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

It asks a simple question
has nothing to do with justification

The lib only knows to spin
It is a simple question

 

[Jarhead]

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.

And one day you will find the link that explains how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him.

Wow. It was so recently and yet you have already forgotten how pissed France was at us. "Freedom Fries" ring a bell?

lol...they werent pissed at us.
Due to pressure from the people, they opted to withdraw their support for the war....they didnt care about leaving Iraq unstable.

But you didnt answer my question.....

Please explain how Bush was able to doctor the intel of those other nations without those other nations getting a little pissed off at him

 

[G.T.]

 

[JRK]

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.

Un accounted for and possess and conceal?
sound allot like to me
If you conceal something would you then be in account for the same?
I dont know, I know this
I have never heard any-one form the left talk about this day

 

[J.E.D]

Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.

Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"

It's a good thing FDR had competent advisers around him who didn't rely on, and push unreliable and unproven evidence before sending American men and women off to die. Bush's legacy - unprovoked war, missed Bin Laden, tax cuts for the rich and the worst job creation numbers in history.

unreliable and unproven evidence? an entire fleet was destroyed. Gee that was tough to prove.

Perhaps you're referring to Pearl Harbor? I'm referring to the unreliable and false evidence that lead to the invasion of Iraq.