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

[DontBeStupid]

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

Countries were pissed at us, even if you refuse to admit it.

As for the intel, I never said Bush doctored anything. Personally, I don't think he had to. The Blix quotes above are a perfect example. Blix was reporting that the WMDs from the 80s and early 90s were unaccounted for. Bush read that and believed it meant the WMDs were being hidden in Iraq, even though there was no proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq.

It wasn't about doctoring anything but misreading the obvious.

 

[elvis]

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.

Not sure what you're referring to.

only that there was no way to receive bad intelligence that it was Japan who had attacked us and in effect a threat to us.

 

[G.T.]

good job, mods.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Actually, I see him justifying the actions of a President...you know...something people do day in and day out on this board.

And to be honest, I beleived there were WMD's as well in Iraq....and if not, then I am confident Hussein did everything he could to make us think there were.

I am glad there werent, but if there were, then I would have been glad we went there.

However, we miscalculated the resistance...we never expected ANY human being who was willing to use schools as sheilds.

So yes, we had the wrong strategy.

 

[Jarhead]

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

Countries were pissed at us, even if you refuse to admit it.

As for the intel, I never said Bush doctored anything. Personally, I don't think he had to. The Blix quotes above are a perfect example. Blix was reporting that the WMDs from the 80s and early 90s were unaccounted for. Bush read that and believed it meant the WMDs were being hidden in Iraq, even though there was no proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq.

It wasn't about doctoring anything but misreading the obvious.

Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.

 

[JRK]

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

I think they got pissed at us about this
Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud
France, Russia, and Saddam
No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list.10 The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein

 

[DontBeStupid]

Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

 

[JRK]

Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

 

[Jarhead]

Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

lets comapre apples to apples......asswipe (your word, not mine)

If I was released 10 years ago under a court order that said the cops had the right to inspect my house whenever they wanted to....and ten years later, I stopped allowing them access to my basement where they originally found illegal drugs...then I would likely be arrested and jailed as the courts would assume I had something to hide.

And then if they said we will let you go, all you need to do is prove to us that you are hiding nothing in your basement...and I gave them access to my basement but told them they can now not look in my attic......I woulkd likely be arrested and jailed again.

Curious....why in your analogy, asswipe (your word), did you NOT mention the treaty and the violation of the treaty.

Are you insecure with your posiitoion on the topic?

 

[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.

Actually, I see him justifying the actions of a President...you know...something people do day in and day out on this board.

And to be honest, I beleived there were WMD's as well in Iraq....and if not, then I am confident Hussein did everything he could to make us think there were.

I am glad there werent, but if there were, then I would have been glad we went there.

However, we miscalculated the resistance...we never expected ANY human being who was willing to use schools as sheilds.

So yes, we had the wrong strategy.

It messes them up. they thought those lies would go on for ever
Look I am just the start
we won
we are leaving Iraq as this thread is wrote
those kids and there leaders did it
we fought AL Qaeda, killed 1000s of them
and the cost?
we had bases in Saudi and Kuwait that was closed
we had billions upon billions the UN was getting from us to baby sit Iraq (I cannot find an accurate #), and this
Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud

 

[JakeStarkey]

We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.

 

[idb]

Oh...I see....and please tell me....what exactly does unaccounted for mean when we had a treaty with Iraq that said that the UN was to have access to everything?

NOT hidden?

Jeez....pathetic how simple minded you are.

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

 

[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.

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.

Cheer?
I dont see anyone cheering this
another liberal myth to the pile of myths
its about correcting history as we leave there, was it 4 years ago it was "Quagmire"
and that all was lost?

Who do you think we were fighting in Iraq? Iraqis?
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leadership: Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq
Al Qaeda in Iraq -- A profile of jihadist organization Al Qaeda in Iraq

try and do some DD on these serious issues

 

[JRK]

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,

 

[JRK]

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

Countries were pissed at us, even if you refuse to admit it.

As for the intel, I never said Bush doctored anything. Personally, I don't think he had to. The Blix quotes above are a perfect example. Blix was reporting that the WMDs from the 80s and early 90s were unaccounted for. Bush read that and believed it meant the WMDs were being hidden in Iraq, even though there was no proof of the WMDs being hidden in Iraq.

It wasn't about doctoring anything but misreading the obvious.

I mean no dis respect but that is pure denial what you are saying

It was not GWB place in life to care for those weapons
It was not the UN's
It was Saddam and he failed, he lied, he hid, he buried, who know what he did
He was suppose to destroy with verifiable evidence
Now 2-300 weapons out of 6,500, you may say ok

But 6500?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the truth?
even Blix commented that the Iraqi govt had not grasped the seriousness of there role in this fiasco

 

[DontBeStupid]

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,

He's exactly correct.

 

[Vanquish]

Yup. That's how I remember it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yup. That's how I remember it.

Its off a bit then. As the regime didnt allow open inspections. There were constant denials and delays.

Even Mr Blitz stated Iraq was not in compliance.

 

[JRK]

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,

He's exactly correct.

I know I am
IT WAS SADDAMS PLACE IN LIFE TO PROVE THOSE WEAPONS WERE DESTROYED BY UN MANDATE
Did Resolution 1441 mean the coalition were supposed to find the WMD in Iraq?

No the coalition were not supposed to find the WMD, the media may try to portray it that way, but not what is required by resolution 1441. The inspectors were there to view the evidence of them having been destroyed not to find them.
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441 in full
What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

The truth lives and breaths
as i said, some of you will not ever been taken serious again

Facts about the Iraq War

 

[JRK]

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,

He's exactly correct.

id the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?

Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain

The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005