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

[Mac1958]

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.

 

[JRK]

Al Qaeda was in Iraq, pre war

I'm still waiting for you to show proof of a cooperative relationship.

Saddam had open the gates through Syria for any and all terror groups to kill Coalition troops.

So you're saying Syria would come to the rescue of one of its enemies?

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.

You gotta love those "unnamed sources".

I never claimed Al Qaeda and Saddam was doing any-thing together
OBL did in a speech, but not me
In an audiotape released on February 11, 2003, bin Laden explained why. “It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one,” bin Laden argued. “There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims’ interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels.  .  .  .  There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.”

Bin Laden’s message was clear. Saddam may be a socialist “infidel,” but he is preferable to the United States and Britain. The terror master called on Muslims to fight alongside Saddam’s forces. And Saddam himself clearly saw a “convergence of interests” as well.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse in 2004, Hudayfa Azzam said that Saddam had welcomed al Qaeda “with open arms” and “strictly and directly” controlled their activities inside Iraq. Azzam was in a position to know. He is the son of one of al Qaeda’s earliest and most influential leaders, Abdullah Azzam, and maintained extensive contacts with al Qaeda leaders inside Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq | Foundation for Defense of Democracies

calling me names will not last long
your still strike 2
It will not lat long

 

[finebead]

Idiot....odds are Saddam moved the WMD out of Iraq under the nose of the IAEA with help from the Russians.

Why the hell was Saddam sending his military to sites to move stuff BEFORE the inspectors arrived a day or more later??? Why did he have spies on the IAEA if he had nothing to hide.

Come on dumbfuck.....explain it.

You're such a ******* idiot.

The IAEA inspections were BEFORE we invaded in Iraq in 2003.

The Iraq and Sryria border was not monitored by the IAEA, so whatever Saddam was moving most likely went across that border. Assad and Saddam had a common enemy in Israel, so working together to maintain their power was in both's best interests.

There are WMD in Syria....

You are such a ******* idiot, because it does make a ******* bit of difference WHEN the ******* IAEA inspections were, they didn't find anything, AND after the war when we could freely inspect where ever we wanted Kaye and Deulfer didn't find anything. In fact nobody found anything anytime, but Bush and Cheney said Iraq had WDM, they sent Powell to tell the UN their lies, and they were wrong. They were always wrong, and it is proven now. The public handed the repubs their hats as they should have. Stop trying to obfuscate by jumbling timeframes, that won't work.

Dumbfuck, PROVE IT. It's your story. Either that, or just whine your way home.

 

[georgephillip]

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.

Luckily the Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi civilian deaths:

"In October 2004, Human Rights Watch estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had been killed since the U.S. bombing and invasion started in 2003. The State Department neglected to condemn this mass destruction of civilians, and the Pentagon responded to the report not with a denial but with an announcement that it did not keep a tally of civilian deaths."

Double Standards on Civilian Deaths

 

[Billo_Really]

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

I never claimed Al Qaeda and Saddam was doing any-thing together
OBL did in a speech, but not me

Bin Laden also offered to kill Hussein for the Saudi's, if they so desired.

The Saudi's said, "Thanks, but no thanks!"

 

[JRK]

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.

And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
The true terrorist
The US and the all volunteer armed services do not go around starting these un fortunate events
Lets not forget the 33 other countries that were there with us

At no time have I commented that any war was a good thing

Let me add another item
The cost of the war has never made the truth meter truth to me any-way
this all volunteer force gets the same treatment where ever they serve
the key word volunteer
food
shelter
Germany
Korea

And the bases closures in Saudi and Kuwait cost has never been taken off as well as the savings we got from supporting the UN and its failed over sight

 

[Mac1958]

.

To add to the summary, there are also people who proudly admit that the following costs were "worth it" to get rid of Saddam Hussein:

• 4,486 American soldiers killed
• 33,184 American soldiers wounded
• Dozens of thousands of American soldiers returning with significant emotional/mental damage
• Thousands of American military families destroyed or gravely damaged
• Thousands of American children being told they'll never see Daddy again
• Approximately $818 billion that we are borrowing
• The clear possibility that enemies will take over in Iraq after we leave
• The balance of power in the Middle East shifting to Iran after Saddam's demise

How brave they are with the lives, limbs, minds, families, children, futures and money of others.

.

Luckily the Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi civilian deaths:

"In October 2004, Human Rights Watch estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had been killed since the U.S. bombing and invasion started in 2003. The State Department neglected to condemn this mass destruction of civilians, and the Pentagon responded to the report not with a denial but with an announcement that it did not keep a tally of civilian deaths."

Double Standards on Civilian Deaths

Evidently anyone who isn't American isn't "exceptional", so their lives are worth even less than the lives of our soldiers to these people.


.

 

[JRK]

Mac
your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
Use better judgement in life young man. You only get one chance

We may dis agree, but that was stupid and you will never overcome it until you face it

 

[Mac1958]

Mac
your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
Use better judgement in life young man. You only get one chance

We may dis agree, but that was stupid and you will never overcome it until you face it

I guess I'm "dis-ignored" again.

Tell ya what, JRK, I'd be happy to re-post it but I'm not going to wade through dozens of pages to find it. Go ahead and re-post it. It was a poster of little boy who was speaking to the grave of his dead soldier father about he would take care of Mom for his Dad.

My point, and you're choosing to miss it, is that the little boy should not have to be in such a position. He, his father and his mother are paying for your fucked up ideology. But since people like you are so fond of throwing people like his father into hopeless war situations, the tragic scene will doubtlessly be repeated many, many times.

Re-post it, then lie to us again how you care about the troops.

.

 

[bobgnote]

Mac
your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
Use better judgement in life young man. You only get one chance

We may dis agree, but that was stupid and you will never overcome it until you face it

You write like some sniper took part of your skull and brain out, with an AK.

Do you mind going over my posts, since you went all the way back, for Mac? I wouldn't mind reading about how the US set all this up, from the get-go, with support for Israel, CIA support for Saddam and the Shah, then conditional enmity for Saddam, all directed, to maximizing casualties, which Mac and loinboy and the rest of us have been trying to educate you about.

But you are a dumbshit, who can barely write. Your reading must be as bad. Looks like your wingpunk Tardzerk took off on a picnic.

 

[JRK]

Mac
your thread about "daddy" is not going away brother
you owe ever soldier who defended your freedom to be who and what you are so much
Getting in bed with the radical liberals who conduct them selves as you did with that thread will never go away
Use better judgement in life young man. You only get one chance

We may dis agree, but that was stupid and you will never overcome it until you face it

You write like some sniper took part of your skull and brain out, with an AK.

Do you mind going over my posts, since you went all the way back, for Mac? I wouldn't mind reading about how the US set all this up, from the get-go, with support for Israel, CIA support for Saddam and the Shah, then conditional enmity for Saddam, all directed, to maximizing casualties, which Mac and loinboy and the rest of us have been trying to educate you about.

But you are a dumbshit, who can barely write. Your reading must be as bad. Looks like your wingpunk Tardzerk took off on a picnic.

What is there to go over?
all You do is attack people
With that I told you you were on strike 2, that last rant put you on strike 3
I have no reason to waste one minute of my life talking to people who think a conversation has the words "barley write" "dumbshit" along with other insults

Good luck in life, with that attitude you will need it. Like I told Mac about his thread about a fallen soldier, you only get one chance in life, your heading in the wrong direction

IGNORED

 

[Billo_Really]

And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
The true terrorist

I blame the ones responsible. We were not attacked by Hussein. We "chose" to attack him. Since that was "our choice", "our decision", why would I blame anyone else but us?

The US and the all volunteer armed services do not go around starting these un fortunate events

Are you on crack? Not only did we start this war, we made up lies to drum up support.

Lets not forget the 33 other countries that were there with us

And probably persuaded with faulty evidence.

At no time have I commented that any war was a good thing

Thank God for that.

Let me add another item
The cost of the war has never made the truth meter truth to me any-way
this all volunteer force gets the same treatment where ever they serve
the key word volunteer
food
shelter
Germany
Korea

I was referring of the cost to the taxpayers with no direct benefit in return.

And the bases closures in Saudi and Kuwait cost has never been taken off as well as the savings we got from supporting the UN and its failed over sight

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[JRK]

And You blame every-one but Saddam and Al Qaeda
The true terrorist

I blame the ones responsible. We were not attacked by Hussein. We "chose" to attack him. Since that was "our choice", "our decision", why would I blame anyone else but us?

The US and the all volunteer armed services do not go around starting these un fortunate events

Are you on crack? Not only did we start this war, we made up lies to drum up support.

And probably persuaded with faulty evidence.

Thank God for that.

Let me add another item
The cost of the war has never made the truth meter truth to me any-way
this all volunteer force gets the same treatment where ever they serve
the key word volunteer
food
shelter
Germany
Korea

I was referring of the cost to the taxpayers with no direct benefit in return.

And the bases closures in Saudi and Kuwait cost has never been taken off as well as the savings we got from supporting the UN and its failed over sight

That makes no sense whatsoever.

We did not choose to attack anyone
we choose to enforce the terms of surrender as well as the 33 other countries
And as far as the "lies"
Congress voted to use force to enforce those terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to to remain in power, other wise known as UN regulations
If Saddam had removed his self from power after it was clear he was not going to do what he said he would, none of this happens
It was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was not in compliance, not even close
Hand Blix made this clear on 1-27-2003


Update 27 January 2003
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing Security ...

There was over 500 munitions Saddam had that were classified as WMDs and presented to congress in 2006 as evidence
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Saddam was selling oil on the black market as well

You brought up the cost. The closing of those bases saved us billions as did the funding the UN required over those years to try and enforce those regulations

You keep forgetting Al Qaeda also had made the beginning of a new force in Iraq. Those munitions we found in Iraq had lethal munitions left in there war heads (remember japans subway gassing?) there was also a large stock pile of "yellow cake"

The Intel was exaggerated by some, but by no means was Saddam innocent of the very items he had agreed to rid his country of. Some were found weeks before ewe invaded. We had no choice but to remove him after 9-11
He made a choice to ignore those terms, not the coalition

Look you have a right to dis agree with these events. But the very reason I started this thread was because of the lies that you now repeat (I do not blame you)

Saddam lied
Saddam did have weapons he was suppose to have destroyed
Saddam did have chemicals in this munitions he was to have destroyed
Saddam had Chemicals in there bare form that he was not suppose to have
Saddam got caught with long range missiles he was suppose to have destroyed
These where all items that Saddam had agreed to have destroyed, he was given a chance to remove his self from power and he chose war, not the coalition

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK is spamming again, the same old talking points that have been clearly rejected as not accurate in context.

 

[Billo_Really]

We did not choose to attack anyone

Are you saying you're not responsible for the things you decide to do?

we choose to enforce the terms of surrender as well as the 33 other countries
And as far as the "lies"
Congress voted to use force to enforce those terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to to remain in power, other wise known as UN regulations
If Saddam had removed his self from power after it was clear he was not going to do what he said he would, none of this happens

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one and I'll cut the check!

It was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was not in compliance, not even close
Hand Blix made this clear on 1-27-2003

I've already debunked this with your own source.

BTW, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words,
"remained siezed on the matter"?

Update 27 January 2003
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htmTHE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix. The governing Security ...

There was over 500 munitions Saddam had that were classified as WMDs and presented to congress in 2006 as evidence
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Old, decaying cans of sarin, forgotten and buried in the desert, does not constitute WMD's.

Saddam was selling oil on the black market as well

So what! That's none of our business and certainly no reason to start a war that caused over a million people to lose their lives.

You keep forgetting Al Qaeda also had made the beginning of a new force in Iraq. Those munitions we found in Iraq had lethal munitions left in there war heads (remember japans subway gassing?) there was also a large stock pile of "yellow cake"

The only reason Iraqis tolerated al Qaeda, was because they were targeting American's. Other than that, they were either thrown in jail or driven out of the country.

The Intel was exaggerated by some, but by no means was Saddam innocent of the very items he had agreed to rid his country of. Some were found weeks before ewe invaded. We had no choice but to remove him after 9-11

Why bring up 9/11 when we're talking about Iraq?

One had nothing to do with the other.

He made a choice to ignore those terms, not the coalition

A member state can not unilaterally decide for the UNSC what is to be done next. All percieved violations should have been referred back to the UN for review.

We are not kings of the world who can do whatever we ******* please!

Look you have a right to dis agree with these events. But the very reason I started this thread was because of the lies that you now repeat (I do not blame you)

You have my permission to blame me for everything I say (and do).

Saddam lied
Saddam did have weapons he was suppose to have destroyed
Saddam did have chemicals in this munitions he was to have destroyed
Saddam had Chemicals in there bare form that he was not suppose to have
Saddam got caught with long range missiles he was suppose to have destroyed
These where all items that Saddam had agreed to have destroyed, he was given a chance to remove his self from power and he chose war, not the coalition

You do know Bush and Blair were found guilty of "crimes against humanity" for starting an "unprovoked war of aggression", don't you?

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg Principles?

 

[Bloodline]

So let's just sum up the dumbfucks on this thread to end this shit.

1) Saddam didn't have WMD despite using it on the Kurds and some WMD found in post-2003 Iraq.
2) Saddam played hide and seek with the IAEA inspectors for over a decade for really no reason.
3) Saddam had spies inside the IAEA teams and sent his military to sites before the IAEA to move stuff for no reason.
4) The Syrian and Iraqi border wasn't monitored by the IAEA but of course Saddam would never move his WMD across that border with help from Russia.
5) Democraps supported the war effort until it was dragging out and no longer cool, so Bush is a war criminal for starting the war.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq, pre war
Saddam had open the gates through Syria for any and all terror groups to kill Coalition troops

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times. They reported heavy traffic in large trucks on the border before the United States invasion.[24] Earlier, in a telephone interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay, said: "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."[25] Satellite imagery also picked up activity on the Iraq-Syria border before and during the invasion. James R. Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in 2003, has said U.S. intelligence tracked a large number of vehicles, mostly civilian trucks, moving from Iraq into Syria. Clapper suggested the trucks may have contained materiel related to Iraq's WMD programs.[26]

ISG formed a special working group to investigate and consider these claims. Charles Duelfer, head of inspectorate at time of publication, summarized the group's conclusion: "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."[27][28][29]

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Libs have showed nothing but hate, for reasons that make no sense
GWB was at best a blue dog democrat. I supported W and feel that he was a much better president than the media reported 7 days a week, 24 hours a day

How did you "support" W?

By never questioning or thinking twice about anything he ever said or did like the rest of his (ahem!) "supporters?

Thought so!

The Iraq Survey Group was told that Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with his intelligence agents who then supervised the movement of banned materials between Syria and Iraq, according to two unnamed defense sources that spoke with The Washington Times.

Gotta love those unnamed sources huh?

Almost something like credible! Interesting that they released their PROPAGANDA to the Washington Times. Why not the Post I wonder?

Probably because these "sources" never existed in the first place but that wouldn't of course matter to the Times! Their mission during that period was to disseminate pro-Bush administration propaganda 24-7!

 

[HUGGY]

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

Am missing something here?

Ya. The cost.

We could have worked within Iraq covertly to establish some crediblity to kill Saddam and gone ahead and killed him allowing a "whole" Iraq to establish his successor. If that guy didn't work out ..repeat until a satisfactory leader emmerged.

This could have all been done a thousand times cheaper and with 5,000 fewer Americans killed, hundred thousands less wounded trillions less spent. Thousands fewer terrorists created.

They (Iraqi people) hung Saddam, not us
How could anything be done with "man" who had killed millions and the NY times reported close to 1 million of his own people (gassed)
Al Qaeda was setting up base there in 02
Saddam was lying
He had munitions, He has Anthrax and there was 550 metric tons of un secured yellow cake there

How many Americans had to die and be wounded?..How much of our treasure was borrowed into the future and unreported at the time it was wasted? Just so an idiot like you could say that the "Iraqis" hung Saddam?

I haven't been following this thread but your statements in response to my post are insane.

Put me on your ignore list please. We have nothing left to discuss.

 

[JRK]

We did not choose to attack anyone

Are you saying you're not responsible for the things you decide to do?

we choose to enforce the terms of surrender as well as the 33 other countries
And as far as the "lies"
Congress voted to use force to enforce those terms of surrender Saddam had agreed to to remain in power, other wise known as UN regulations
If Saddam had removed his self from power after it was clear he was not going to do what he said he would, none of this happens

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one and I'll cut the check!

I've already debunked this with your own source.

BTW, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words,
"remained siezed on the matter"?

Old, decaying cans of sarin, forgotten and buried in the desert, does not constitute WMD's.

So what! That's none of our business and certainly no reason to start a war that caused over a million people to lose their lives.

The only reason Iraqis tolerated al Qaeda, was because they were targeting American's. Other than that, they were either thrown in jail or driven out of the country.

Why bring up 9/11 when we're talking about Iraq?

One had nothing to do with the other.

A member state can not unilaterally decide for the UNSC what is to be done next. All percieved violations should have been referred back to the UN for review.

We are not kings of the world who can do whatever we ******* please!

Look you have a right to dis agree with these events. But the very reason I started this thread was because of the lies that you now repeat (I do not blame you)

You have my permission to blame me for everything I say (and do).

Saddam lied
Saddam did have weapons he was suppose to have destroyed
Saddam did have chemicals in this munitions he was to have destroyed
Saddam had Chemicals in there bare form that he was not suppose to have
Saddam got caught with long range missiles he was suppose to have destroyed
These where all items that Saddam had agreed to have destroyed, he was given a chance to remove his self from power and he chose war, not the coalition

You do know Bush and Blair were found guilty of "crimes against humanity" for starting an "unprovoked war of aggression", don't you?

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg Principles?

I do not recall the UN having jurisdiction on the US
Congress made it clear
If he refuses to enforce the very terms he agreed to surrender on, get rid of him
we did with 33 other countries
That link has NEVER been de bunked
Update 27 January 2003
read it and count the number of resolutions the UN had issue with
Why bring up 9-11?
In his book, At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet discussed at length the intelligence concerning al Qaeda’s presence in Baghdad. Tenet says the CIA found “more than enough evidence” connecting Saddam’s Iraq to al Qaeda. The CIA was particularly concerned about a group of al Qaeda operatives and allies – including Ayman al Zawahiri’s lieutenant, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (the first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq), and Abu Ayyub al Masri (who stepped in for Zarqawi as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq but was killed in 2010) – who had set up shop in Baghdad prior to the war.

Abu Ayyub al Masri’s widow has since confirmed the CIA’s pre-war intelligence, explaining that she and her husband moved to Baghdad in 2002.

In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help [Kurdish extremists] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the
Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Still Clueless About Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard
GWB made it clear, you harbor Al Qaeda, were coming after them

Saddam brought all of this on to Iraq

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama apparently has a gig planned for next week that will turn the invasion and the bushies upside down,

He and H. Clinton will be dressed in MiB black costumes as if they were W and MR, hold up flash pens to a picked "audience" of voters, and try to flash them into forgetfulness of the Bush years.

That is a hoot,