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

[ABikerSailor]

We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.

Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?

Yea Iraq had a "No-Fly Zone" too. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that,you have to believe Iraq was a success. They're doing the very same thing in Libya as we speak. I see lots of posters on this Board cheerleading for this Libyan War on a daily basis. Unfortunately most are so caught up in that old 'D' & 'R' Game,they don't even realize they're actually on the same side as those they enjoy viciously attacking. Oh well like i said,ignorance really is Bliss.

Iraq was a failure, because not only were we lied to about the reasons we needed to go into Iraq, but Halliburton and KBR helped out by building showers in the green zone barracks that electrocuted 40 some odd soldiers, throwing obscene amounts of money into a place where the perpetrator of 9/11 WAS NOT IN!

Libya was a humanitarian mission because Qaddafy was killing his own people with cluster munitions and torture.

Iraq was for oil, no other reason.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea and this Libyan War has nothing to do with Oil. Man,so many are just so willing to believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that policy,Iraq and Libya will have to be considered successes. There is no real disagreement here. All Foreign Interventionists should be jumping for joy over this stuff. For everyone else it just Sucks though.

 

[BlindBoo]

'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.

Regime change by supporting opposition groups not a military invasion, occupation and nation building. That is not a success for us or them.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Iraq/Libya? It's just so hilarious watching people try and spin how they're supposedly so different. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you believe in that stuff,than yes Iraq & Libya could be called successes. Although the Libyan War has not yet been resolved,it does look like getting rid of Gaddafi is the goal. So we'll have to wait a bit longer to see how that Regime Change War works out. Some really are just so blinded by that 'D' & 'R' political thing that they don't even know they're on the same side as those they viciously attack. It really is convenient ignorance.

 

[JRK]

We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.

Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?

Yea Iraq had a "No-Fly Zone" too. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that,you have to believe Iraq was a success. They're doing the very same thing in Libya as we speak. I see lots of posters on this Board cheerleading for this Libyan War on a daily basis. Unfortunately most are so caught up in that old 'D' & 'R' Game,they don't even realize they're actually on the same side as those they enjoy viciously attacking. Oh well like i said,ignorance really is Bliss.

Iraq was a failure, because not only were we lied to about the reasons we needed to go into Iraq, but Halliburton and KBR helped out by building showers in the green zone barracks that electrocuted 40 some odd soldiers, throwing obscene amounts of money into a place where the perpetrator of 9/11 WAS NOT IN!

Libya was a humanitarian mission because Qaddafy was killing his own people with cluster munitions and torture.

Iraq was for oil, no other reason.

who lied?
no one lied
Saddam was told to clean up 100% or else in 1992
There where over 500 munitions found with banned substances in the war heads found
1000s of pounds of anthrax that was never found
Halliburton is KBR and you got a link to back that bull shit up with?
And I do not recall anyone saying that OBL was in Iraq after 9-11, you got a link to back that one up?
We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein lied. there is more history on this, but you Libs just want to keep lying
Do you numbskull's realize we have a all volunteer military?
you keep talking shit about an event we keep getting good kids who think enough about it to keep going
You dis agree with going to war is your right
you lying about it to justify that feeling is being a liberal, and I feel sorry for you

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thats the first I have heard that

That's because he just made it up, right now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here she is on Fox News last week. (Quote appears in the video at 0:24.)

“I would not have done what the president did in Libya. I would not have intervened now at this time. We don’t even know who the opposition forces are. We don’t know if the opposition is being pushed by Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq. That could be a far worse outcome than dealing with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is not necessarily been the best friend of the United States, but in some ways he’s been neutralized.”

Michele Bachmann's Libya Nonsense[/QUOTE]

So she makes perfect sense and you are as stupid as a stump?

I think everyone already knew this.

 

[JRK]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

I am not sure your numbers are accurate
Iraq Body Count project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say this one is which is 156,000 total deaths
from 03-11
A.Ps is less
WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justify?
This world changed 9-11-2001
Saddam was told weeks later what to do or else
the man was given 18 months

What role did Saddam play in the events of 9/11/2001?

I am not sure anyone but you are stating that Saddam did
You liberals keep telling this story over and over

Where do you want to start?
9-11?
So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers.


A mural at an Iraqi military base appears to celebrate 9/11.
Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.


1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin
in a State Department "Wanted" poster
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. 19




9/11 hijackers Nawaz al Hamzi and Khalid al Midhar
Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.


A security camera captures the impact of
American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon


Firefighters try to control the flames engulfing
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001
Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen. 20

there is more information on this link than you care to read my friend
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
You liberals act as though, never mind
Its like i stated earlier
you sit around and lie while an all volunteer army is still signing up to kick there ass

 

[georgephillip]

We could start by asking how many US children Saddam killed.

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931–6.)"

MMS: Error

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Is a 'Regime Change' Policy a just policy? Americans really need to think more about if it's right for our Nation to go all around the World picking & choosing who stays in power or is removed. Personally,i don't support this policy. Libya/Iraq? There is no difference. Some are desperately trying to convince themselves that there is a difference but there just isn't. Do you support Regime Change as a Foreign Policy or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[idb]

Is a 'Regime Change' Policy a just policy? Americans really need to think more about if it's right for our Nation to go all around the World picking & choosing who stays in power or is removed. Personally,i don't support this policy. Libya/Iraq? There is no difference. Some are desperately trying to convince themselves that there is a difference but there just isn't. Do you support Regime Change as a Foreign Policy or not? You can't have it both ways.

Foreign policy can't be simply black or white.

 

[georgephillip]

"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."

Imagine.

A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.

False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."

Imagine.

A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.

False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com

This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.

 

[idb]

"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."

Imagine.

A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.

False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com

This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.

How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."

Imagine.

A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.

False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com

This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.

How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.

Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.

 

[idb]

This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.

How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.

Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.

Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.

Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.

Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.

Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.

Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.

Our Government supports Regime Change in Libya. And so do the Western Europeans. And they're also arming and training the rebels. That goes along with their bombing & killing Libyans on behalf of the rebels. There is nothing "Humanitarian" about this War. That's just more lies.

 

[idb]

Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.

Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.

Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.

Our Government supports Regime Change in Libya. And so do the Western Europeans. And they're also arming and training the rebels. That goes along with their bombing & killing Libyans on the rebels' behalf. There is nothing "Humanitarian" about this War. That's just more lies.

Fine...can't believe anything the Government says...I can't argue with that.

 

[georgephillip]

Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.

Then there's the long arm of central bankers:

"Another provocative bit of data circulating on the net is a 2007 Democracy Now! interview of US Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about ten days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. 'I don't know!' was the response. 'I guess they don't know what else to do!'

"Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

"What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.

"The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted, 'ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency and its dominion as the petrodollar.'"

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking? | Truthout

Oil or banking or some combination thereof, one thing that's certain is that there would be no war in Iraq or Libya unless it was making a few rich parasites even richer.

War is a Racket

 

[JRK]

Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.

Then there's the long arm of central bankers:

"Another provocative bit of data circulating on the net is a 2007 Democracy Now! interview of US Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about ten days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. 'I don't know!' was the response. 'I guess they don't know what else to do!'

"Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

"What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.

"The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted, 'ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency and its dominion as the petrodollar.'"

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking? | Truthout

Oil or banking or some combination thereof, one thing that's certain is that there would be no war in Iraq or Libya unless it was making a few rich parasites even richer.

War is a Racket

How is the war in Iraq made anyone richer?
I will give you KBR and that bunch made very little money, not worth a war
Profitless Profiteering
Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq?
By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 3:47 PM ET
Is it war profiteering if you barely make a profit on your war work?

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
REPRINTS
SINGLE PAGE
In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq—everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.
But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
Advertisement

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices—not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.
When you're a logistics company—and one working on a 1 percent profit margin—inefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.
According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million—a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million—a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
KBR is now under criminal investigation by the Pentagon over claims it overcharged for fuel delivered from Kuwait. The Pentagon is also looking into dining-hall contracts allegedly awarded without competitive bids. And annoyed at repeated billing screw-ups, the Pentagon is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to KBR. Any of these conflicts could further erode KBR's margins.
KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contracts—yet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home about—and they're certainly not worth starting a war over.