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

[JakeStarkey]

Let me remind everyone that JRK is in denial.

 

[JRK]

Let me remind everyone that JRK is in denial.

Jake we finally agree
I deny that GWB lied
I deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
I deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
I deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
I deny that the war was illegal
I deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
I deny that weapons Saddam had never existed
I deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
I deny that we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, by all evidence and facts,

You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
You are wrong to deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
You are wrong to deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
You are wrong to deny that the war was illegal
You are wrong to deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
You are wrong to deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
You are wrong to deny we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda


You are right to deny that weapons Saddam had never existed: they did, a long time before the war, and as such, were not relevant in 2003.

JRK, you are immoral to keep denying when the facts have been overwhelmingly presented to you in clear and convincing fashion to contradict all of your main points.

JRK, to call you immorally fixated on this is not character assassination. It is a fact, and all reasonable Americans reading this thread are well aware that you will iie to promote your right wing progressive neo-con imperialism.

 

[JRK]

Character assassination is not just immoral
It is liable
Jake did you know that?
Is that true Jake?

 

[Jarhead]

JRK, by all evidence and facts,

You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
You are wrong to deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
You are wrong to deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
You are wrong to deny that the war was illegal
You are wrong to deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
You are wrong to deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
You are wrong to deny we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda


You are right to deny that weapons Saddam had never existed: they did, a long time before the war, and as such, were not relevant in 2003.

JRK, you are immoral to keep denying when the facts have been overwhelmingly presented to you in clear and convincing fashion to contradict all of your main points.

JRK, to call you immorally fixated on this is not character assassination. It is a fact, and all reasonable Americans reading this thread are well aware that you will iie to promote your right wing progressive neo-con imperialism.

I have seen circumstantial evidence that Bush lied...but nothing that I would deem as proof he lied.
I have seen the same in regard to Blair..
Cant quite figure out what gain there would have been for Bush AND Blair to lie
Congress apporved the military action. Therefore there was no criminla activity
It is easy to say that the action in Iraq was wrong seeing as no WMD's were found. However, as you admit, he had them...and he gave us reason to believe he still had them. Not just our intel said so...the intel of many other countries said so.
You seem to ignore that Hussein ignored the terms of the treaty
I am not sure why you think that Bush, Blair, and other heads of state wanted a war.....Bush has no history of enjoying watching american Men and Women die for no reason.
For that matter, neither does Blair.

 

[editec]

Did we win the war?

What did we win, exactly?

 

[Full-Auto]

Did we win the war?

What did we win, exactly?

An empty vault.

 

[JRK]

JRK, by all evidence and facts,

You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
You are wrong to deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
You are wrong to deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
You are wrong to deny that the war was illegal
You are wrong to deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
You are wrong to deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
You are wrong to deny we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda


You are right to deny that weapons Saddam had never existed: they did, a long time before the war, and as such, were not relevant in 2003.

JRK, you are immoral to keep denying when the facts have been overwhelmingly presented to you in clear and convincing fashion to contradict all of your main points.

JRK, to call you immorally fixated on this is not character assassination. It is a fact, and all reasonable Americans reading this thread are well aware that you will iie to promote your right wing progressive neo-con imperialism.

I have seen circumstantial evidence that Bush lied...but nothing that I would deem as proof he lied.
I have seen the same in regard to Blair..
Cant quite figure out what gain there would have been for Bush AND Blair to lie
Congress apporved the military action. Therefore there was no criminla activity
It is easy to say that the action in Iraq was wrong seeing as no WMD's were found. However, as you admit, he had them...and he gave us reason to believe he still had them. Not just our intel said so...the intel of many other countries said so.
You seem to ignore that Hussein ignored the terms of the treaty
I am not sure why you think that Bush, Blair, and other heads of state wanted a war.....Bush has no history of enjoying watching american Men and Women die for no reason.
For that matter, neither does Blair.

What I do not understand is why is this so personal to these people who there only response is to sate I am immoral
Not one of them has de bunked the following

GWB said the same thing in general that the UN was saying, hell everyone was just about including Saddam

The issue was HR-1442, not WMDS as the lie turned out to be
And my god if GWB had lied to congress does anyone think for one minute that congress in 07 would not have hung him?
That is the biggest evidence that all of those accusations were lies

 

[JRK]

Did we win the war?

What did we win, exactly?

An empty vault.

No-one claimed a vault had anything to do with it
Saddam being removed and a republic replacing it became official US policy with close to 100% approval in 1998
HR 1442 was not being complied with. The US congress stated in 2002 that if he does not, take him out
We did

 

[Full-Auto]

Did we win the war?

What did we win, exactly?

An empty vault.

No-one claimed a vault had anything to do with it
Saddam being removed and a republic replacing it became official US policy with close to 100% approval in 1998
HR 1442 was not being complied with. The US congress stated in 2002 that if he does not, take him out
We did

The man asked what we won.

The answer is an empty vault.

Length of war FAIL

Cost of war FAIL

catch on yet?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, by all evidence and facts,

You are wrong to deny that GWB lied
You are wrong to deny any part of our victory in Iraq was illegal
You are wrong to deny what we did in Iraq was just for oil
You are wrong to deny that what we did in Iraq was a mistake
You are wrong to deny that the war was illegal
You are wrong to deny that anyone in the white-house wanted this war
You are wrong to deny that the 550 metric tons of yellow cake found in Iraq was under anyone's control when we invaded
You are wrong to deny we were fighting Iraqis after April 2003, we were fighting Al Qaeda


You are right to deny that weapons Saddam had never existed: they did, a long time before the war, and as such, were not relevant in 2003.

JRK, you are immoral to keep denying when the facts have been overwhelmingly presented to you in clear and convincing fashion to contradict all of your main points.

JRK, to call you immorally fixated on this is not character assassination. It is a fact, and all reasonable Americans reading this thread are well aware that you will iie to promote your right wing progressive neo-con imperialism.

I have seen circumstantial evidence that Bush lied...but nothing that I would deem as proof he lied.
I have seen the same in regard to Blair..
Cant quite figure out what gain there would have been for Bush AND Blair to lie
Congress apporved the military action. Therefore there was no criminla activity
It is easy to say that the action in Iraq was wrong seeing as no WMD's were found. However, as you admit, he had them...and he gave us reason to believe he still had them. Not just our intel said so...the intel of many other countries said so.
You seem to ignore that Hussein ignored the terms of the treaty
I am not sure why you think that Bush, Blair, and other heads of state wanted a war.....Bush has no history of enjoying watching american Men and Women die for no reason.
For that matter, neither does Blair.

What I do not understand is why is this so personal to these people who there only response is to sate I am immoral
Not one of them has de bunked the following

GWB said the same thing in general that the UN was saying, hell everyone was just about including Saddam

The issue was HR-1442, not WMDS as the lie turned out to be
And my god if GWB had lied to congress does anyone think for one minute that congress in 07 would not have hung him?
That is the biggest evidence that all of those accusations were lies

The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny. That is immoral.

 

[Jarhead]

I have seen circumstantial evidence that Bush lied...but nothing that I would deem as proof he lied.
I have seen the same in regard to Blair..
Cant quite figure out what gain there would have been for Bush AND Blair to lie
Congress apporved the military action. Therefore there was no criminla activity
It is easy to say that the action in Iraq was wrong seeing as no WMD's were found. However, as you admit, he had them...and he gave us reason to believe he still had them. Not just our intel said so...the intel of many other countries said so.
You seem to ignore that Hussein ignored the terms of the treaty
I am not sure why you think that Bush, Blair, and other heads of state wanted a war.....Bush has no history of enjoying watching american Men and Women die for no reason.
For that matter, neither does Blair.

What I do not understand is why is this so personal to these people who there only response is to sate I am immoral
Not one of them has de bunked the following

GWB said the same thing in general that the UN was saying, hell everyone was just about including Saddam

The issue was HR-1442, not WMDS as the lie turned out to be
And my god if GWB had lied to congress does anyone think for one minute that congress in 07 would not have hung him?
That is the biggest evidence that all of those accusations were lies

The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny. That is immoral.

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What I do not understand is why is this so personal to these people who there only response is to sate I am immoral
Not one of them has de bunked the following

GWB said the same thing in general that the UN was saying, hell everyone was just about including Saddam

The issue was HR-1442, not WMDS as the lie turned out to be
And my god if GWB had lied to congress does anyone think for one minute that congress in 07 would not have hung him?
That is the biggest evidence that all of those accusations were lies

The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny. That is immoral.

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

His dad's war and Saddam's promise to kill his dad could be 2 reasons he was looking for war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise. I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly. He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.

 

[Jarhead]

The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny. That is immoral.

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

His dad's war and Saddam's promise to kill his dad could be 2 reasons he was looking for war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise. I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly. He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.

The bottom line?

You used the words "could be" and "think" to come to your summation.

And you see, my point is that is ALL people have to work with.

SO when I hear things like "the facts are the facts" I realize I am speaking to people that would never be successful as an attorney as you can not apply assumption to confirm anything as a fact.

That is known as circumstantial evidence.

And when it comes to political debates? People forget that they are applying their ideology when they assume...and therefore are not confirming facts, but instead taking facts and applying them to their ideology.

 

[elvis]

The facts clearly contradict your opinion, yet you continue to deny. That is immoral.

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise. I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly. He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.

I've been saying that for years.

 

[Jarhead]

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise. I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly. He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.

I've been saying that for years.

It is one of the most sound theories I have heard to date.

 

[Dr.Drock]

what you refer to as facts is nothing more than evidence based on assumption.

You ASSUME Bush was looking for a reason to go to war.

With that assumption, you can take all of the facts and come up with undeniable evidence.

But once you eliminate that assumption....those facts are no longer undeniable evidence.

And to be frank....there is nothing in Bush's history that gives me reason to assume he was looking for a reason to go to war.

His dad's war and Saddam's promise to kill his dad could be 2 reasons he was looking for war.

Now that's not what I think, but that's what others could surmise. I think Bush was lied to by people above him (oil companies, UN ppl, others who benefitted from the war etc) and that's what led him to think this war of aggression was worth fighting and would be overwith quickly. He simply repeated the lies he heard, and thought what he was saying was true, imho.

The bottom line?

You used the words "could be" and "think" to come to your summation.

And you see, my point is that is ALL people have to work with.

SO when I hear things like "the facts are the facts" I realize I am speaking to people that would never be successful as an attorney as you can not apply assumption to confirm anything as a fact.

That is known as circumstantial evidence.

And when it comes to political debates? People forget that they are applying their ideology when they assume...and therefore are not confirming facts, but instead taking facts and applying them to their ideology.

Well here's the facts;

1.) The Iraqi military and Saddam were zero threat to america.
2.) They couldn't hit us with any weapons, WMD's or not.
3.) Thousands of americans killed, tens of thousands injured permanently be it physical or mental.
4.) The Iraqi gov't is an apartheid gov't based on Islam run by a man with previous close ties to Hezbollah. Christians are fleeing at a rate never before seen, even under Saddam.
5.) Trillions of dollars in debt racked up.

All the above reasons are why I was against the war start to finish.

Oh and one other off topic item, lawyers work on assumption all the time.

 

[JRK]

Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
It was his documents that made claim there was Anthrax (Iraq not only admitted having it, they tried to claim they destroyed it)
The 6500 munitions missing came from there documents
the Nerve gas came from there documents

there is no conspiracy here Jar head, the left created it and kept saying it so many times it became the truth
Saddam and his goons could not supply the evidence that those weapons and elements had been destroyed
IT WAS THERE JOB TO DO THAT
My god how many times do we have to keep over this?
Res 687 and 1441
read them
Google Blixes speech 1-27-2003 to the UN

My god why do you people keep trying to re create what really occurred?

 

[elvis]

Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
It was his documents that made claim there was Anthrax (Iraq not only admitted having it, they tried to claim they destroyed it)
The 6500 munitions missing came from there documents
the Nerve gas came from there documents

there is no conspiracy here Jar head, the left created it and kept saying it so many times it became the truth
Saddam and his goons could not supply the evidence that those weapons and elements had been destroyed
IT WAS THERE JOB TO DO THAT
My god how many times do we have to keep over this?
Res 687 and 1441
read them
Google Blixes speech 1-27-2003 to the UN

My god why do you people keep trying to re create what really occurred?

The Bush admin didn't lie..... they exaggerated.

 

[JRK]

Guys the only person that was lying was Saddam
It was his documents that made claim there was Anthrax (Iraq not only admitted having it, they tried to claim they destroyed it)
The 6500 munitions missing came from there documents
the Nerve gas came from there documents

there is no conspiracy here Jar head, the left created it and kept saying it so many times it became the truth
Saddam and his goons could not supply the evidence that those weapons and elements had been destroyed
IT WAS THERE JOB TO DO THAT
My god how many times do we have to keep over this?
Res 687 and 1441
read them
Google Blixes speech 1-27-2003 to the UN

My god why do you people keep trying to re create what really occurred?

The Bush admin didn't lie..... they exaggerated.

In fairness to ever-one involved the only people who exaggerated was Saddam and the U.N.
guys these events are all 100% a creation
There was no top secret anything
Saddam created the vacum of missing weapons
Blix reported it as such
we invaded

the rest of this crap the media made up, the public did no DD or forgot the truth when it counted