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

[Uncensored2008]

Hey at least Halliburton & KBR pay Taxes. GE doesn't. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt Hopey Changey's "Jobs Czar?" Pretty laughable no? GE & this White House represent corrupt cronyism at its worst.

What they represent is fascism. The Obama doctrine is fascism, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[georgephillip]

What is the cost benefit of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

By any objective measure it is a failure.

Wry... Do you think Halliburton, Blackwater and Boeing, not to mention Goldman Sachs or the richest 1% of Americans, agree with you.

There are reports of defense contractors' profits quadrupling from the Iraq War.

War is a RacketTHREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...id-contract-in-iraq-start-a-war-for-this.html
really?
Let me ask another question
Does these same companies not get work in Afghanistan?
Look if you dis agree with the war, thats your right
But to make a claim that GWB invaded Iraq so KBR could do some work is nuts
Why do that when GM (UAW) gets 50 billion for doing nothing?

Let's look at how our "junior partner's" doing in Iraq, keeping in mind they are second in line.

"Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show."

So far the British have been more forthcoming in answering FOIA requests than we have but stay tuned on that one.

"In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as highly inaccurate'. BP denied that it had any 'strategic interest' in Iraq, while Tony Blair described 'the oil conspiracy theory" as 'the most absurd'".

"But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture...

"Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: 'Baroness Symons (UK Trade Minister at the time) agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis'...

"Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had 'no strategic interest' in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was 'more important than anything we've seen for a long time.'"

Those twenty year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion of Iraq were the largest in the history of the oil industry, covering half of Iraq's reserves.

Btw, Lady Symons cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts, and recently severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board.

Do you sense a pattern forming here?

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

 

[JRK]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

#2?

I guess if we look at how many people are murdered in this country daily, do we consider this country stable?
I mean if you hear of 30 people every day killed in Iraq you go OMG
Right?
not so crazy after you see we have as many as we do
How many murders committed per day in US? « The Tizona Group
Answers.com - How many murders committed per day in US

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Am missing something here?

1 is done

2 not quite yet

3 only the future will tell.

So in reality you are 1 for 3.

3 is done also

After an invasion led by American and British forces, the Ba'ath Party was removed from power and Iraq came under a military occupation by a multinational coalition. Sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government in June 2004. A new constitution was then approved by referendum and a new Government of Iraq was elected. Foreign troops remained in Iraq after the establishment of a new government due to an insurgency that developed shortly after the invasion, with violence peaking in mid 2007. In August 2010 the U.S. became the last member of the coalition to cease combat operations in Iraq. 50,000 US troops remain in the country in an advisory role; their full withdrawal mandated by 31 December 2011.[6]

Not really. Only time will tell that they will remain on that path after we leave. To claim otherwise assumes facts not in evidence YET.

 

[drsmith1072]

Bud I cannot in words tell you how predictable that comment is

to start with the war was Saddam's fault
he was given 18 months to do the right thing
There are no winners in any war, but the goals that where set where accomplished

We caused part of this in 1980s
We should have ended it in 1991
Saddam was a mad man

WOW! rewrite history much??

Inspectors were in iraq on the ground doing their jobs. W decided to go against the UN and told the inspectors to leave as he invaded a country claiming that they violated a UN resolution, which should be a call made by the UN, even as W went against the UN to invade.


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

rewriting history huh?
this is the event that lead to the invasion
Saddam lied to much

Yes rewriting history and i am not respondiong to your spam. it has already been seen and questioned and it has been pointed out to you that blix made a later report to the UN in which he stated how much iraq was cooporating so yuor argument that saddam was given 18 months to do the right thing is a BS attempt to rewrite history seeing that W kicked the inspectors out when they were doing their jobs.

W chose to rush in and stopped the inspections and all you can do is quote cherry picked talking points from op-eds and right wing blogs that fit your predisposed opinions.

 

[drsmith1072]

1) How much damage has terrorism done to our economy? And do not claim Saddam had nothing to do with nothing. we will never know how much, how longand whom profited from it

So because we don't know that must mean that he was involved?? Got it.



Drock can give his argument on that.



isn't that what you are expressing??



So saddam invaded his own country with US forces and used out miltary both air and ground to kill innocent people even after his death?? WOW!



Uh ok. LOL



HUH?? do you actually believe that you are making any sense? What can the COST of a war offset??

7) The UN? do not insult my intelligence nor the seriousness of this thread with the UN

Really?? Yet one of the primary claims of the right was that we invaded because they violated un resolutions. So thank you for admitting that one of the reasons for the invasion was BS. LOL

1) the war and the cost of the war is really unknown, at best 1.5 trillion over years. about the same as Obama's failed stimulus if you add his part of tarp to it
Remember the troops are some were no matter
getting paid
eating
sleeping riding
flying
etc....
2) Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
IRAQ

October 11, 2002

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

3&4 do not exist without 9-11, Saddam and 1991 Saddam. thats not our fault
Saddam had ample time to do the right thing

5) Timeline: Iraq votes on new government

Tweet
Share this
inShare
Digg
Email
Print
Related News
Iraq approves new government with Maliki as PM
Tue, Dec 21 2010
Infighting delays Iraqi government formation
Mon, Dec 20 2010
Foreign troop death toll in Afghanistan in 2010 nears 700
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Iraq to unveil new government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Maliki to name Iraq government Monday
Sat, Dec 18 2010
Related Topics
World »
BAGHDAD | Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:55am EST
(Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a new government on Tuesday, nine months after an inconclusive election left politics in limbo and delayed investments to rebuild the country after years of war [ID:nLDE6BK12I].

Here are some key events since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

March 20, 2003 - U.S. and British forces invade from Kuwait.

April 9 - U.S. troops take Baghdad, Saddam disappears.

July 13 - The Iraqi Governing Council -- 25 Iraqis chosen under U.S. supervision -- holds inaugural meeting in Baghdad.

August 19 - Suicide truck bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad kills 22 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

December 13 - U.S. troops capture Saddam near Tikrit. U.S. governor of Iraq Paul Bremer breaks news with: "We got him."

March 8, 2004 - Governing Council signs interim constitution.

June 1 - Governing Council dissolved to make way for interim government led by Iyad Allawi. Ghazi al-Yawar named president.

June 28 - United States formally returns sovereignty. Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved. Bremer leaves Iraq.

January 30, 2005 - Shi'ite-led United Iraqi Alliance dominates vote for local council and interim parliament. Most Sunnis do not vote.

March 16 - National Assembly holds first meeting.

October 15 - Referendum ratifies constitution despite Sunni Arab opposition.

December 15 - Parliamentary election. More Sunnis vote this time than in the January election.

February 10, 2006 - Final results give Shi'ite-led UIA near majority with 128 seats. Sunni Arabs have 58 and Kurds 53.

February 22 - Bombing of Shi'ite shrine in Samarra sparks widespread sectarian violence, raising fears of civil war.

November 5 - A Baghdad court finds Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity. He is executed on December 30.

June 15, 2007 - U.S. military says it has completed its troop build-up, or "surge," to 160,000 soldiers to quell violence.

August 14 - Truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq kill more than 400 people -- the deadliest militant attacks in Iraq since 2003.

January 12, 2008 - Parliament votes for junior members of Saddam's Baath Party to return to government jobs, a key to reconciliation.

July 19 - Iraq's main Sunni Arab bloc rejoins the government when parliament approves its candidates for ministerial posts.

November 17 - Iraq and the United States sign an accord requiring Washington to withdraw its forces by the end of 2011.

January 1, 2009 - U.S.-Iraq security pact comes into force, placing the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops under Iraqi authority.

January 31 - Iraq holds provincial elections, the most peaceful vote since the fall of Saddam, demonstrating big security gains. Maliki's nationalist coalition scores big victory at the expense of sectarian and federalist parties.

February 27 - U.S. President Barack Obama announces plan to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq by August 31, 2010. He makes an unannounced visit to Baghdad on April 7.

December 8 - Iraq sets March 7, 2010 as the long awaited date for a general election, hours after at least 112 people are killed when bombers strike government buildings in Baghdad.

March 7, 2010 - Parliamentary elections.

May 10 - At least 125 are killed in a wave of bombings and shootings across the country by suspected Sunni Islamists.

May 16 - Iyad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition wins 91 seats in the March 7 elections. Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law bloc is second with 89 seats.

August 7 - The U.S. 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last brigade mainly focused on combat, hands over to Iraqi forces.

November 11 - Incumbent Prime Minister Maliki's Shi'ite-led alliance will get the prime minister post, guaranteeing him a second term, while minority Kurds are to keep the presidency after Iraq's main factions agree on the top three political posts, ending an eight-month deadlock after the March elections.

December 21 - Parliament approves Maliki's new 42-strong cabinet list, which includes the appointment of outgoing Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani as deputy prime minister for energy and outgoing Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Esawi as finance minister. Hoshiyar Zebari is reappointed foreign minister.

6) in 2007 we where within 150 billion of breaking even, the war in Iraq was at its peak
we went over budget from 03-08 less than 2 trillion
from 09-10 it was over 3 trillion

Do you know how NOT to spam??

Your 1) is iofftopic bs and a doesn't really address what was said.

your 2) is somethign that you need to address with the guy who made the claim.

you skip 3) and 4)

Your 5) doesn't really address what was said so why is it that you seem to believe spamming nonresponsively actualyl addesses what was actually said??

your 6) does nothing to address your claim of offsetting costs.

and you don't respond to 7)

LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

false?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country
snopes.com: Former Iraqi General: WMD moved to Syria

failure? Saddam? gone
Iraq? republic
Terrorist? Gone, dead, desperate

I do not recall us taking anything in Iraq
nor do I recall keeping anything

you have you're opinion, i just wished it was based on accurate information

I would throw in that question mark after the word "false" too if i were desperate enough to use the sources that you are using. LOL

You also have your OPINIONS, I just wish you were smart enough to know the difference between your opinions that the facts.

So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?

Yes the source matters, W's experience with "curveball" should have taught you that. Quoting someone who is using info that cannot be verified for personal gain might just be making shite up because he believes that it's what we want to hear.

 

[drsmith1072]

So Dan rather @ CBS is a real good one I hear?
does it matter where a direct quote comes from?
I mean really you going to get Dan rather to look for the truth?

Dan took one for the team obviously. The story about the special treatment President Bush reveiced getting in and through out his guard service(ignoring his AWOL status), not reporting for duty....ect and so on...all morphed into the Dan used a forged document story even though document was used to prove a single minor point. It's all about Dan.....

Dan's not going to give you the truth, he'll tell you the President's head shot violently forward after the fatal head wound. And since he saw the only movie of it, the nation beleived it, for a while.....

The left amazes me
to question any news organization or web site as though ABC or MSNBC is such a better and more accurate source

LOL So you can't defend your own source so you move the goal posts and try to change the focus to other sources that have nothing to do with yours. LOL

 

[George Costanza]

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

Am missing something here?

We are not the World Police. Shit happens. It is happening now, in all different corners of the world. Too bad. Sorry. We are not the World Police.

 

[drsmith1072]

"Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 4,038 civilian deaths from violence in 2010 (compared to 4,686 in 2009).

Tell it to Duhhhrrrrsmith.

He says it's a line of BS made up by the right.

BTW, you know full well that 90% +++ of the deaths are Muslim on Muslim violence.

Ok please to read.

This started with a claim that there have been 99,000 -100,000 deaths in the iraqi war.

Then YOU responded with

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis.

blindboo responded with

Who said the United States killed 100,000+ Iraq Civilians? Not the poster and not the link?

and then i responded with

You knopw how they work. One of them makes up some line of bs, then falsely attributes it to another poster and then the rest of the troll brigade jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the targetted poster over the same work of fiction.

So your original argument where you claim that someone said that the US killed 100,000 iraqi civilians when even you admit that the source did not make that claim, was made up.

 

[drsmith1072]

Iraqis are now free


Democrats despise free people and free thought outside their MArxist Athiest baby killing homo agenda

Freedom in a Islamic theocracy?

Hate democrats much? Ahh, what happened did some damn dem piss on your corn flakes dude?

Both of you
this country is being run into the ground by Obama
What we did in Iraq had a 63% approval rate in 2003

There you go cherrypicking and spamming again. Why focus on that one approval rating?? Was it the highet point in approval for the iraq war??

 

[drsmith1072]

what about this guy/
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.



Read more: Saddam general: WMDs in Syria Saddam general: WMDs in Syria


how about these 500 munitions that Saddam was suppose to have destroyed?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

how about Blix and the UN?
In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.
he private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.
A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.

Nice sidestep with an extra sidestep of spam. LOL It's really funny how you rush to believe the "butcher of basra" et al and their claims that they can't prove all because their claims support your spin. LOL

You liberals amaze me
How far do you want to go with this?
esolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Blix stated inn 2003 that they had lied

Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link Added
how far do you want to take this?

WOW! You actually do believe that your spam is a response to every post even though you fail to actually respond to the actual content. LOL

"Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden."

Even your own source counters your spin. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

#2?

I guess if we look at how many people are murdered in this country daily, do we consider this country stable?
I mean if you hear of 30 people every day killed in Iraq you go OMG
Right?
not so crazy after you see we have as many as we do
How many murders committed per day in US? « The Tizona Group
Answers.com - How many murders committed per day in US

Uh we don't even hear of every murder every day in ourown states let alone the entire country and you actually expect us to hear about every murder that occurs in iraq??


BTW don't you consider it a tad bit dishonest to try and compare the murder rate in the US to the deaths caused by acts of terrorism in iraq??

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok please to read.

This started with a claim that there have been 99,000 -100,000 deaths in the iraqi war.

You're mentally retarded.

 

[JRK]

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

Am missing something here?

We are not the World Police. Shit happens. It is happening now, in all different corners of the world. Too bad. Sorry. We are not the World Police.

Your opinion is duly noted with respect

 

[JRK]

#2?

I guess if we look at how many people are murdered in this country daily, do we consider this country stable?
I mean if you hear of 30 people every day killed in Iraq you go OMG
Right?
not so crazy after you see we have as many as we do
How many murders committed per day in US? « The Tizona Group
Answers.com - How many murders committed per day in US

Uh we don't even hear of every murder every day in ourown states let alone the entire country and you actually expect us to hear about every murder that occurs in iraq??


BTW don't you consider it a tad bit dishonest to try and compare the murder rate in the US to the deaths caused by acts of terrorism in iraq??

We did when GWB was president
And as far as re writing history
it is funny you make that claim when the media is the only ones re writing history

Allot of assumptions where made and allot of comments where taken out of context

To start with I am 100% against all violence
These events went on from 1991 till 2003

Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument
Thats 1998, not 2003
re write history?
If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
This is why a liberal fails so many times in a free market environment
They do not understand a root cause analysis

Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, favor sending ground troops to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power
Poll: Bush gaining support on invading Iraq - CNN
and do not hit me with the bull shit about WMDs
Saddam was suppose to have destroyed every war head that contained a chemical substance
The press decided to state that those munitions found with those chemicals within them where not the same as a war head that had a harm full chemical compound in it
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Bottom line is Saddam was lying the entire time

 

[Wry Catcher]

By any objective measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a failure.

 

[drsmith1072]

Ok please to read.

This started with a claim that there have been 99,000 -100,000 deaths in the iraqi war.

You're mentally retarded.

WOW! So stating the facts that you avoided as you tried to spin what someone said to fit your need to attack them is mentally retarded?? Got it. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I guess if we look at how many people are murdered in this country daily, do we consider this country stable?
I mean if you hear of 30 people every day killed in Iraq you go OMG
Right?
not so crazy after you see we have as many as we do
How many murders committed per day in US? « The Tizona Group
Answers.com - How many murders committed per day in US

Uh we don't even hear of every murder every day in ourown states let alone the entire country and you actually expect us to hear about every murder that occurs in iraq??


BTW don't you consider it a tad bit dishonest to try and compare the murder rate in the US to the deaths caused by acts of terrorism in iraq??

We did when GWB was president

we did what?? What are you claiming and care to prove it??

And as far as re writing history
it is funny you make that claim when the media is the only ones re writing history

ah the old bait and switch. You are rewriting history and cherry picking comments that suit your needs and instead of addressing that you try to change the subject

Allot of assumptions where made and allot of comments where taken out of context

and your posts are a perfect example of how comments are taken out of context.

To start with I am 100% against all violence
These events went on from 1991 till 2003

Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument

I just wonder why you choose to cherry pick a time in the past even as you ignore facts from a more recent time that tend to counter your spin and have MORE to do with the current conversation.

Thats 1998, not 2003
re write history?

What does 1998 have to do with W's CHOICE to kick out the inspectors BEFORE they had completed their jobseven as W chose to invade in 2003? Furthermore, wasn't their job in accordance with the UN and wasn't W's decision at least partially based on the claim that iraq violated a UN resolution??

How can you honestly use the violation of UN resolutions as a justification when W went against the UN to invade???

If Saddam does the right thing in 1991, why the hell is there even a history?
This is why a liberal fails so many times in a free market environment
They do not understand a root cause analysis

AGAIN since you are prone to ignoring facts that counter your spin i guess I will have to repeat them to you. If you want to look at a root cause look to reagan who helped saddam in the iran-iraq war inspite of his use of WMDs. Do you actually believe saddam's reign began in 1991?
Once again you choose to insult because you have no real argument when you look at the WHOLE picture instead of the few excerpts that you have chosen to cherry pick and base your entire oad of bs on.

Iraq is an event that had a 63% in favor of invading in 2003
Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, favor sending ground troops to remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power
Poll: Bush gaining support on invading Iraq - CNN

Uh and you don't think that has anything to do with how W and the right talked up the imminent threat that iraq posed to the US and how if we don't intercede we could see mushroom clouds over our cities?? LOL

and do not hit me with the bull shit about WMDs
Saddam was suppose to have destroyed every war head that contained a chemical substance
The press decided to state that those munitions found with those chemicals within them where not the same as a war head that had a harm full chemical compound in it
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Bottom line is Saddam was lying the entire time

And again you spam with moronic BS about old defunct munitions. Imagine that.

Jrk want a cracker?? I have to ask because you are very good at repeating the same bs over and over again even IF it lacks substance and does nothing to further your arguments.

 

[BlindBoo]

And as far as re writing history
.
.
.
Hell Saddam had kicked out the inspectors in 1998, oh I know here comes they choose to leave them selves argument

It is not an argument that Unscom was not kicked out by Saddam. Anyone who tells you Saddam kick them out is trying to re-write history.

In 1998 Richard Butler, the head of Unscom, pulled them out amid accusations of U.S. spying. Less than 24 hours later, the United States, along with Great Britain, launched Operation Desert Fox.

The Case of the Spies Without a Country