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

[8537]

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

 

[JRK]

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

Desperate?
If this is desperation then why do you not just ignore it and exactly what evidence to the contrary are we talking?

Did 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 (2002) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 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);
Resolution 687
BBC NEWS | Americas | Key points of resolution on Iraq

The only desperate people I see are the ones who called this unfortunate action a Quagmire and that all was lost

 

[Dr.Drock]

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.

 

[JRK]

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.

I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination.
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria,
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working

 

[Dr.Drock]

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.

I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination.
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria,
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working

From your very own cut and paste selection;

None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other MiddleEastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

Apologize for what? You still choosing to deny facts, even facts from your own sources?

There is something you need to do, apologize for labeling the Iraq veterans who are against the War in Iraq as anti-american and anti-soldier. There is no worse insult you can provide to a soldier, however I'm certain you won't take back that statement.

 

[JRK]

George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.

I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination.
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria,
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working

From your very own cut and paste selection;

None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other MiddleEastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

Apologize for what? You still choosing to deny facts, even facts from your own sources?

There is something you need to do, apologize for labeling the Iraq veterans who are against the War in Iraq as anti-american and anti-soldier. There is no worse insult you can provide to a soldier, however I'm certain you won't take back that statement.

You have no idea how far over the line you are
I put on ignore to ignore you and you keep on attacking my good name

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam

Thats from your thread

Your attacking threads to start with Drock,

do you understand what the word no means?
My response is from the 9-11 report stating there was more than no, read it Drock and stop saying things that are not true
Drock I have had enough of this
put an end to it now
Drock put an end to it now

You want to debate things with people on this message board, thats your business
you keep lying about me Drock is got to stop bud
NOW
I mean it

 

[Dr.Drock]

I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination.
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria,
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working

From your very own cut and paste selection;

None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other MiddleEastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

Apologize for what? You still choosing to deny facts, even facts from your own sources?

There is something you need to do, apologize for labeling the Iraq veterans who are against the War in Iraq as anti-american and anti-soldier. There is no worse insult you can provide to a soldier, however I'm certain you won't take back that statement.

You have no idea how far over the line you are
I put on ignore to ignore you and you keep on attacking my good name

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam

Thats from your thread

Your attacking threads to start with Drock,

do you understand what the word no means?
My response is from the 9-11 report stating there was more than no, read it Drock and stop saying things that are not true
Drock I have had enough of this
put an end to it now
Drock put an end to it now

You want to debate things with people on this message board, thats your business
you keep lying about me Drock is got to stop bud
NOW
I mean it

I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war. That's a disgusting and immoral lie.

 

[JRK]

From your very own cut and paste selection;

None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other MiddleEastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

Apologize for what? You still choosing to deny facts, even facts from your own sources?

There is something you need to do, apologize for labeling the Iraq veterans who are against the War in Iraq as anti-american and anti-soldier. There is no worse insult you can provide to a soldier, however I'm certain you won't take back that statement.

You have no idea how far over the line you are
I put on ignore to ignore you and you keep on attacking my good name

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam

Thats from your thread

Your attacking threads to start with Drock,

do you understand what the word no means?
My response is from the 9-11 report stating there was more than no, read it Drock and stop saying things that are not true
Drock I have had enough of this
put an end to it now
Drock put an end to it now

You want to debate things with people on this message board, thats your business
you keep lying about me Drock is got to stop bud
NOW
I mean it

I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war. That's a disgusting and immoral lie.

I have asked you to stop miss quoting me, JRK
you Dr.Drock;4205298 have by your actions declined
9-29-2011
0923
edited 0934
9-29-2011

 

[Dr.Drock]

You have no idea how far over the line you are
I put on ignore to ignore you and you keep on attacking my good name

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam

Thats from your thread

Your attacking threads to start with Drock,

do you understand what the word no means?
My response is from the 9-11 report stating there was more than no, read it Drock and stop saying things that are not true
Drock I have had enough of this
put an end to it now
Drock put an end to it now

You want to debate things with people on this message board, thats your business
you keep lying about me Drock is got to stop bud
NOW
I mean it

I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war. That's a disgusting and immoral lie.

I have asked you to stop miss quoting me, JRK
you Dr.Drock;4205298 have by your actions declined
9-29-2011
0923
edited 0934
9-29-2011

Now you're lying about your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-146.html

JRK
Registered User
Member #28394 Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,902
Thanks: 244
Thanked 210 Times in 170 Posts
Rep Power: 34



Quote: Originally Posted by kaz
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey
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

You said that.

and I've REPEATEDLY asked you to take that back, and you haven't. So YOU are saying that Iraq vets, who are against the War in Iraq, don't support the troops.

 

[JRK]

I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war. That's a disgusting and immoral lie.

I have asked you to stop miss quoting me, JRK
you Dr.Drock;4205298 have by your actions declined
9-29-2011
0923
edited 0934
9-29-2011

Now you're lying about your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-146.html

JRK
Registered User
Member #28394 Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,902
Thanks: 244
Thanked 210 Times in 170 Posts
Rep Power: 34



Quote: Originally Posted by kaz
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey
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

You said that.

and I've REPEATEDLY asked you to take that back, and you haven't. So YOU are saying that Iraq vets, who are against the War in Iraq, don't support the troops.

I have asked Dr.Drock;4205298 to stop taking my words JRK out of context
this action proves he will not
I have never said that Iraqi vets do not support the troops Dr.Drock;4205298
Your taking JRKs opinion and expanding beyond JRKs meaning, a definition that only JRK could know
I ask Dr.Drock;4205298 again to leave me alone
to stop taking my opinions out of context
To stop adding comment and conjecture to events that may or may not have occurred and to clarify any thing that may confuse Dr.Drock;4205298 of comments JRK may have said to ask JRK directly

Only an idiot would make claim that your service of this great nation as a service person would also mean you did not support your fellow service men, no matter what the situation or your feeling on the war(s) we are engaged in at this time


again Dr.Drock;4205298 is taking liberties that are not his place in life to do with JRKs opinions, feelings, and in general who and what JRK is and add information to that- that is not true bor is it the feelings JRK has


Simply put I have thanked our troops numerous times for there service, no matter if they support the war or not

Dr.Drock;4205298 I demand you stop harassing me
my name
my reputation
NOW

to stop taking any comments EVER I have made and adding context and beliefs to those that may or may nor have ever existed

Dr.Drock;4205298 I demand you to cease this at once
JRK has nothing further to say on this matter
JRK will monitor all verbiage directed at JRK from Dr.Drock;4205298 from here until JRK is satisfied this attack on JRK and his character has stopped

 

[Dr.Drock]

If you do not support the wars there is no way you can support the troops



You said that, you categorically said everyone who doesn't support a war, doesn't support the troops. Quite obviously the word EVERYONE includes Iraqi vets who are against the War in Iraq.


So please stop blaming ME for your inability to get your message across.


Simply saying "Sorry, I didn't mean that, or I worded that wrong" would clear it all up, but you won't say that.

 

[JRK]

On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division. They ended their assessment of the situation in Iraq with the following passage:

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."


May God Bless them
Also I want to add that we did the very things these men asked for

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...87DLDA&usg=AFQjCNFbs2StBV8bDeCXUqp-Dsj2NA5xdQ

 

[Nic_Driver]

I've never once lied about you, I'm even using your own links against you.

You said everyone who is against the War in Iraq is anti-american and anti-soldier.

I asked you, REPEATEDLY to take that back, and to address your views on Iraq War veterans who are against the war and you refused to every time.

So if you say everyone who's anti Iraq War is anti-america and anti-soldier, YOU are including Iraq War veterans who are against the war. That's a disgusting and immoral lie.

I have asked you to stop miss quoting me, JRK
you Dr.Drock;4205298 have by your actions declined
9-29-2011
0923
edited 0934
9-29-2011

Now you're lying about your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...to-claim-the-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-146.html

JRK
Registered User
Member #28394 Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,902
Thanks: 244
Thanked 210 Times in 170 Posts
Rep Power: 34



Quote: Originally Posted by kaz
Quote: Originally Posted by JakeStarkey
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

You said that.

and I've REPEATEDLY asked you to take that back, and you haven't. So YOU are saying that Iraq vets, who are against the War in Iraq, don't support the troops.

It won't be long before JRK won't have anyone left to respond, he'll ignore the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

George Bush says no WMD's, and every gov't agency agrees with Bush.

Yet he thinks he's defending Bush, by saying Bush was lying and there were WMD's.

Every gov't agency agrees there was no relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, in fact Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel.

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.



Thousands of posts, facts, links, have proven that he'll never get passed the talking points from 2003, that even his hero Bush and his party have abandoned.

I wonder if I have an understanding of the word taken out of context and character assassination.
what do think Drock?

The DOD claimed there was weapons that fit the criteria,
are they not a Govt agency?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...paXCDA&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg

The white house only comment I can find out that was that GWB took the hi road. He offered no comment. Google it, fox news weapons and its all there

From the 9-11 commission report

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76


http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

You want to apologize now?
What is your agenda with me?

give it a rest, your the only one who is doing this and what ever your agenda is, its not working

All of that has been debunked as nonsense repeatedly in one or more of your other threads.

 

[8537]

JRK's right wing progressive neo-con prattle makes no sense.

What's the word in psychology when you desperately cling to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary? When you rely any nugget of information that might support your belief while dismissing any information that challenges that belief?

Desperate?

Desperate?No, that's not the word I was looking for. I believe it's called confirmation bias but I'm not a psychologist.

 

[8537]

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.

Let me guess - agents for the two met in the Czech Republic before 9.11. Amiright?

Dick Cheney told me so.

 

[8537]

That link to wanews is incorrect. From a brief review, it appears the title of that website is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!news.

Rhymes with the noise a baby makes when you take his binky.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yet he still claims 9/11 and Saddam+Bin Laden ties are a valid excuse for the War in Iraq.

Let me guess - agents for the two met in the Czech Republic before 9.11. Amiright?

Dick Cheney told me so.

Osama hated Saddam but they were secretly in kahoots planning 9/11. Obviously, that's how Osama treated ppl he hated and termed infidels.

 

[JRK]

That link to wanews is incorrect. From a brief review, it appears the title of that website is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!news.

Rhymes with the noise a baby makes when you take his binky.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2006-701.pdf
The Iraqi chemical weapons stockpile consisted of chemical warfare agents
filled into munitions and bulk containers. Iraq declared an overall production of
some 3,850 tons of chemical agents during the past chemical weapons programme.
Approximately 3,300 tons of mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and sarin or a
sarin/cyclosarin mixture were weaponized into about 130,000 munitions, out of
which over 101,000 munitions were used during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi
chemical arsenal, produced before 1991, included the following delivery systems:
155-mm artillery projectiles, 122-mm rockets, missile warheads and a variety of
aerial bombs. While most of the agents weaponized were filled into aerial bombs,
the 122-mm rockets and 155-mm artillery projectiles were the most numerous
munitions of the Iraqi chemical weapons arsenal. Iraq declared and inspectors
confirmed that the 155-mm projectiles had been filled with mustard gas, while the
122-mm rockets were weaponized with sarin or a sarin/cyclosarin mixture. Iraq also
declared that it had successfully developed and tested a limited number of binary
artillery systems, including 155-mm and 152-mm shells for sarin but did not enter
into serial production of such systems.
2. According to Iraq, during the Iran-Iraq war, munitions were filled with
chemical agents days or weeks before their intended use and, after temporary
storage at the Muthanna State Establishment, the primary Iraqi chemical weapons
facility, they were delivered directly to designated military units. The chemical
munitions were dispersed to dozens of locations throughout the territory of Iraq,
where they could have been mixed with conventional munitions, abandoned, buried,
lost or damaged. Iraq declared that the chemical munitions produced after the IranIraq war (in 1990 and January 1991) had been distributed to 17 locations, including
airbases and ammunition depots, throughout the country. Normally, artillery shells,
aerial bombs and warheads filled with chemical agents were stored without their
associated explosives. The explosive burster charge and fuse were inserted prior to
use. The 122-mm rockets filled with nerve agents, however, were frequently stored
complete with their explosive burster charge, fuse and with rocket motors attached.

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States
from the 9-11 commission
http://wanews.org/docs/911report.pdf

I am not sure why this group keeps spamming the same thing
These personal attacks on me are confusing

 

[JRK]

Nothing has been debunked
I ask you again to either prove it or apologize
Why you want to join these others on ignore is beyond me
all you have to do is ask or stop stating things without back up