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

[Billo_Really]

His unprovoked invasion of...

Funny how you pick and choose, which "unprovoked invasion", you're for and against?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loinboy kicks JRK butt the way our military personnel kicked SH's army.

Then our government through it all away.

 

[GoneBezerk]

What a ******* moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.

Do we need permission from the UN to defend ourselves, dumbfuck? If China attacks Hawaii do we need the UN to give us the OK to shoot back?

Did Obamination get UN approval to enter Pakistan and kill UBL and his friends??? I don't recall the UN giving Obamination approval to go after terrorists, especially going into a third party country. Come on dumbfuck, you need to connect all your dots.

When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?

When Congress ratified Article 51 of the UN Charter, thus giving it the same weight as our Constitution, dumbass!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ahhhh, an idiot from down under. You don't know shit about what is going on inside Iraq....but please tell us what your tiny brain thinks is going on like Cheney and Bush are making millions from Iraqi oil, throw in Haliburton too...eh?

Oh, don't try to play yourself as special and more intelligent based on your Aussie background, I've been there and worked around your military....you are not more intelligent than us, idiot.

Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???

I'm sure NPR, msnbc, kooks like you could find info for your bullshit claims.

Come on kook, Buuuuuuuush is making millions off Iraqi oil is your start.

That's a fact not too many people talk about.

Sanctions on Iraq that had prevented them for selling oil on the open market, were about to be lifted and the last thing they were going to do with their 4th largest reserve, was sell it to the US.

So we went in there to find out why they had "our oil", under "their sand"!

That's the trouble Bezerk,they only tell you what they think you need to know......well as an Australian,(we can spot a bullshitter from a mile away) Bush was at the time treating the world like Court Jesters but regrettably (and it was hard to watch) He and his Cohorts were treating the American People like Village Idiots and most lapped it up,incredibly.steve

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck, nice stories about things Bush didn't do in 1958, but I'm sure you can twist the story into Bush being the centerpiece.

Again, Bush went to the UN to get internationl support to squeeze Saddam but instead he found Europeans, Russians and UN leaders in on the Oil for Food scam stealing money off the top of the program while they allowed Saddam to play games with the IAEA inspectors.

So Bush just RESTARTED the first Gulf War that Saddam started because the US military doesn't need the corrupt UN to give us permission to do the right things.

Got that, dumfuck?

When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?

You are insane, probably from that syphilis finally eating away your brain like it did with Hitler. Lucky for the world you only control your TV remote and your blow up doll, unlike hitler.

JRK continues his fail on the Boad.

The invasion was unnecessary, was not sanctioned by the UN, was illegal, and did not result in a reconstituted ME in harmony with the USA. It led to a huge deficit, injured the economy, and the rejection of neo-con thuggery in politics.

He has not carried one single point as women are forced back into sharia submission and Iraq drifts into alliance with Iran,

JRK should never be allowed to in the presence of our military,

But Tardy, you didn't read the other posts, until somebody put up UN Res.51, did you.

Back a couple dozen pages, I posted how the CIA and MI6 put up the Shah's regime, and CIA support for Saddam started, in 1958. All excessive US presence does is start the dictators, help them persist, and then the US egregiously bombs and shoots up with D.U.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You are an example of how idiots get to expose themselves on the internet. In the 1970s your kind would just be known in your neighborhood for being an idiot but now people around the world can see it.

So we left "combat troops" in Iraq at "4" bases, huh? So Obamination and the media lied when they claimed "combat troops" left Iraq.

Based on my work dealing with OSC-I, I recall the number being less than 400 military personnel, so I guess you think we have 100 troops at each base...eh dumbfuck? Hint: The Iraqis wouldn't like "secret" US troops sneaking out of these bases without agreements in place like SOFA and we wouldn't like it too since those troops that are outside the mission of the Embassy could be held under Iraq's laws.....but you didn't know that, sorry to ruin your fairytale.

Oh, you did NOT show where we're stealing Iraqi oil, the entire reason for invading Iraq according to you idiots...instead you went on some rant about high gas prices here that I didn't mention. Gas prices are high here because we don't even drill enough in our country, not because of what we do/don't do in Iraq.....dumbfuck.

Hmmm, dumbfuck....where are all these stories of Americans stealing Iraqi oil???

I'm sure NPR, msnbc, kooks like you could find info for your bullshit claims.

Come on kook, Buuuuuuuush is making millions off Iraqi oil is your start.

That's a fact not too many people talk about.

Sanctions on Iraq that had prevented them for selling oil on the open market, were about to be lifted and the last thing they were going to do with their 4th largest reserve, was sell it to the US.

So we went in there to find out why they had "our oil", under "their sand"!

That was the whole idea. Now we don't have to steal it because "we" OWN it!

"So if we own it then why aren't gas prices cheaper now in America," you may ask?

DUH!

Gas is NEVER going to be cheap again in America. The American investors who drove the U.S. government and the puppets in power at the time into invading Iraq aren't anymore interested in giving their profits away for any "good of the nation" than the Saudi Royal Family or Hugo Chavez!

In addition to having the Iraqi puppet government in the United States' back pocket we now have a HUGE military footprint in Iraq (in the form of four sprawling military bases) from which we can launch tactical nuclear strikes anywhere in the southeastern hemisphere without the need for those pesky, easily detected ICBM's!

Soon ALL the oil in the world will be OURS and we will be RICH! FILTHY RICH!!!!

Well....maybe not US or the nation.....but SOMEBODY will be lol!

Don't look for them to spread the wealth to you though through cheaper gas.....or cheaper anything really!

All they need from you is your blind unflinching support and a firm grasp on your ankles!

 

[JakeStarkey]

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy. Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself. He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So Bush violated US laws....which ones? Let's see, Congress (writes the laws) supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq, but Democraps later jumped ship once mistakes of dealing with Sunnis made the situation drag on longer than a TV show. You liberals have limited mental capacity, so anything longer than a TV show blows a fuse.

Maybe you mean Bush violated international laws....which ones? Just to give you a hint, removing a murderous dictator like Saddam for non-compliance with IAEA inspections regarding his WMD program and supporting terrorists attacking Israel during a ceasefire from a war HE STARTED typically doesn't meet international law standards among sane people.

Sure kooks like you that are dumber than shit throw around violations of laws from here to Mars, but even Democraps in charge right now would laugh you out of the room. In fact, they would lock you in a rubber room.

Don't be a butt nutt!

Think about what you are saying dude!

You can't argue that the U.S. went to war in Iraq to protect women from Sharia law!

That's just ridiculous and insults everything our soldiers have died for!

Nor can you say that the U.S. is somehow "exempt" from the UN, the Geneva Conventions, OR the Nuremburg Tribunals.

You have to remember that WE have always been the most powerful signatory on ALL of these international laws!

In all of them.....WE have led the world.

What message does it send the rest of the world when WE break or just diss our OWN laws?

 

[GoneBezerk]

So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad.

Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil.

Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise.

Come on truck driver, you can do it.

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy. Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself. He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.

 

[GoneBezerk]

So the "secret" Sesame Street number is 2, eh? I thought it was the lucky number 7? We must invade Iraq SEVEN TIMES!!!!

The US went to Iraq, again, to prove to Sunnis, how GW Bush can count to two.

Two towers, two wars, against Iraq, two wars, going on at the same time, against Sunnis.

Problem is, GW and all the wingnuts in creation don't add their collective IQ to three. They make up for the obvious lack of brains, with raw greed.

 

[Bloodline]

What a ******* moron....the US never gave the UN authority over the US military and its actions. The US tries to work through the UN which Bush did, but when it is clear the UN is corrupt and the US military needs to take action.....then we take action.

Do we need permission from the UN to defend ourselves, dumbfuck? If China attacks Hawaii do we need the UN to give us the OK to shoot back?

Did Obamination get UN approval to enter Pakistan and kill UBL and his friends??? I don't recall the UN giving Obamination approval to go after terrorists, especially going into a third party country. Come on dumbfuck, you need to connect all your dots.

When does the US need permission from the UN, the UN that put murderous dictators on human rights panels?

When Congress ratified Article 51 of the UN Charter, thus giving it the same weight as our Constitution, dumbass!

Experts are still divided over the issue of whether the use of force by the U.S. was legal in the invasion of Iraq. There will be doubt in the minds of all INTELLIGENT people probably forever.

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues

Funny that it's so cut and dry in the minds of simpletons like you!

Bush and his daddy's friends had no patience with the UN route so their "justification" in attacking in spite of agreement among the other major UN nations that weapons inspections were working, was to grasp at the straw that Saddam had not honored the cease fire agreement put in place in 1991

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

At that point I believe they made their first mistake in the giant shell game that would become justification for war.

You see, a long time ago there was this pesky little guy with a funny moustache in Germany who decided he wanted to take over ALL of Europe. He began invading other nations who hadn't even attacked him first! He justified his actions by saying they were in the "national defense" of his homeland.

As a result, once the funny little guy was driven from power and forced to kill himself the United States sat down with a bunch of leaders from other countries and wrote some international LAWS to make sure that NO more funny little men could EVER invade other sovereign nations who hadn't attacked them using the ruse that it was for their own national security to do so!

Then all those years later ANOTHER funny little man (G.W. Bush) pulled the SAME thing in spite of the laws!!!

So....cool....we "liberated" Iraq from a brutal regime.....maybe.

It was still illegal because no WMD existed as claimed meaning Iraq was NEVER a threat to our national security and a "preemptive" strike was never necessary!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ahhh, a dumbfuck like you rolls out some kook left-wing evidence.

Uh, maybe you need to figure out who started the entire conflict in the first place and that the US military never left patrolling Iraq during the ceasefire. You see Iraq lost many of its international rights when they invaded Kuwait and endlessly violated terms of the ceasefire. It's like when you broke the law and you violate your terms of parole....the police can bust down your door and take you back to jail.

So kooks like you need to prove TODAY what the US got in return for removing Saddam. Remember those claims that we went there to steal Iraqi oil.....so prove we are indeed stealing their oil after "invading" Iraq.

Now, get back to your fry rack job and stay out of adult issues.

Experts are still divided over the issue of whether the use of force by the U.S. was legal in the invasion of Iraq. There will be doubt in the minds of all INTELLIGENT people probably forever.

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues

Funny that it's so cut and dry in the minds of simpletons like you!

Bush and his daddy's friends had no patience with the UN route so their "justification" in attacking in spite of agreement among the other major UN nations that weapons inspections were working, was to grasp at the straw that Saddam had not honored the cease fire agreement put in place in 1991

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

At that point I believe they made their first mistake in the giant shell game that would become justification for war.

You see, a long time ago there was this pesky little guy with a funny moustache in Germany who decided he wanted to take over ALL of Europe. He began invading other nations who hadn't even attacked him first! He justified his actions by saying they were in the "national defense" of his homeland.

As a result, once the funny little guy was driven from power and forced to kill himself the United States sat down with a bunch of leaders from other countries and wrote some international LAWS to make sure that NO more funny little men could EVER invade other sovereign nations who hadn't attacked them using the ruse that it was for their own national security to do so!

Then all those years later ANOTHER funny little man (G.W. Bush) pulled the SAME thing in spite of the laws!!!

So....cool....we "liberated" Iraq from a brutal regime.....maybe.

It was still illegal because no WMD existed as claimed meaning Iraq was NEVER a threat to our national security and a "preemptive" strike was never necessary!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated. BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons. Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation. Watch and learn, little one.

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy. Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself. He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.

So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad. Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil. Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise. Come on truck driver, you can do it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Saddam's party would never have come to power in Iraq without help from the CIA.
The concern of US elites over the control of "greatest material prize in history" is the root cause of all the war crimes committed in the Middle East since the end of WWII.

Not the help, the cooperation.
In intelligence that is a big difference.
CIA is an intelligence operation, not a policy and strategy entity. CIA has no military power.

It's all semantics in that regard.

Tell us how the CIA can drop smart bombs.
Is that "semantics"?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck, what are these laws? Name them.

Also, which European country is going to arrest a former US POTUS protected by the US Secret Service. Can you say an act of war, terrorism by kidnapping an American citizen like our former leader in Europe?

Good God you're dumber than shit. You liberals are kooks of the highest order among tin foil hat club members.

Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated. BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons. Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation. Watch and learn, little one.

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy. Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself. He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.

So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad. Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil. Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise. Come on truck driver, you can do it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tardzerk can't even comprehend the post to which he responded. Lawfully arresting a former US president is neither terrorism or act of war, merely law enforcement. The European Union, NATO, and the UN would prevent the USA from doing anything militarily about it,. Why do you think the senior bushies have traveled so very little (compared to the principals of other previous administrations) and almost never now? They are criminals, tard, and they know it.

Let Bush fly to Paris or The Hague without agreements of non-arrest and only a few body guards, and you will find out immediately what laws he is alleged to have violated. BHO continues to wind down the incredibles messes in Iraq and Afghanistan created by the neo-cons. Once Romney replaces him, very little presence will remain in either nation. Watch and learn, little one.

TardyZerk continues to babble nothing new or worthy. Absolutely sinks the neo-con Bush positions on the war all by himself. He is worse than JRK and that is saying a bunch.

So do you know what laws Bush violated? Come on and help your fellow idiots out here, they're looking bad. Also, what about the "bad things" we're doing in Iraq today like say stealing their oil. Didn't we just invade Iraq to "steal" their oil. Can you help out with the claims of secret US combat troops still in Iraq? Didn't Obamination say we pulled out the combat troops, but your boyfriends here say otherwise. Come on truck driver, you can do it.

Dumbfuck, what are these laws? Name them. Also, which European country is going to arrest a former US POTUS protected by the US Secret Service. Can you say an act of war, terrorism by kidnapping an American citizen like our former leader in Europe? Good God you're dumber than shit. You liberals are kooks of the highest order among tin foil hat club members.

 

[sparky]

 

[Gadawg73]

Saddam's party would never have come to power in Iraq without help from the CIA.
The concern of US elites over the control of "greatest material prize in history" is the root cause of all the war crimes committed in the Middle East since the end of WWII.

Not the help, the cooperation.
In intelligence that is a big difference.
CIA is an intelligence operation, not a policy and strategy entity. CIA has no military power.

For instance if the CIA didn't have the power to "shape" policy then how was Congress led to war with MOST of the C.I.A.'s top officials advising against it?

Oh yeah.....Donald Rumsfeld/Dick Cheney's clandestine "Office of Special Plans was cherrypicking raw, unvetted C.I.A. intel and presenting it to Congress as the polished product using the qualifier that "all of the other intel agencies around the world concur."

What they neglected to tell Congress was that all of the other world intel agencies were simply "concurring" on the same garbage they were presenting to Congress!

Quite a loop huh?

It did influence policy to the tune of over three thousand dead American soldiers though.

Tune in next for someone to chime in "yeah....but Clinton saw the same intel back in (fill in the blank)."

So what? He didn't use it to invade Iraq did he?

Maybe he was a little smarter than G.W. ya thank?

CIA is one of 16 intelligence agencies.
If you want I can tell you how the CIA has only a limited intelligence gathering purpose.
For your information the CIA is a CIVILIAN intelligence agency of the government.
They report to the Director of National Intelligence.
Now please tell us how much influence they have over the military intelligence branches that report directly to the JCS and that chain of command.
Politically, who do you think has more influence on the commander in chief, CIA or the other 15 intelligence agencies that have been training and planning operational on the ground strategy in conjunction with every branch of the military?
"cherry picking" is done in every intelligence gathering operation.
Monday morning QBing is always there when things go wrong and when they go right we have the Obamas there to take the credit for it.
Operational intelligence is not an exact science. I know. I do it for a living for 34 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

G, you were a private businessman, and now you are saying you are a spook?

I am saying you are a liar.

 

[finebead]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Over-simplification. What was the cost to the USA?

We spent a trillion dollars on the war over 8 years, lost 4,500 killed, 30,000 wounded half of which could not return to combat status. We will spend 2 trillion dollars over the next 100 years in disability and healthcare to the wounded vets from Iraq war (estimate I have seen, and assumes the last Iraq vet dies at age 120 as the lifespan gets longer).

None of your stated benefits directly helps the US.

Who ever said it was the US responsibility to remove Saddam? It wasn't. We should have armed his internal opposition to overthrow him if they wanted to, but it wasn't our affair.

No WMD, no involvement in 9/11 = stay out.

It was a bad deal for the US, cost too much and we got too little out of it.