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

[traveler52]

We had no business going to war in Iraq, and the ten years have proven that.

He says as the Arab Spring rolls on...

There is no correlation between the Arab Uprisings and the Illegal and Un-Constituional Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Do not try to give credit to Draft-Dodger Dick and Deserter George, it ain't there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War. What a stupidly ignorant statement.

 

[Unkotare]

Your questions have been answered time and again.

As Iraq continues to ally with Iran, the neo-con perfidy becomes so obvious that treason trials of the bushies are the only truly American and righteous answer.

So, instead of answers we get empty, emotive nonsense. Typical.

 

[Unkotare]

Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War. What a stupidly ignorant statement.

Oh no, just a coincidence that one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world was replaced with a representative democracy and suddenly all these things started happening (don't forget kids, it didn't start in Tunisia but well before).

 

[Unkotare]

"The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that:'From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.'[1][2]

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed.

"The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal..."

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless you can prove Iraq posed an existential threat to the US, the US invasion and occupation was and is illegal under international law.

The quotes you yourself chose to include above demonstrate that there is debate and disagreement on the issue. That alone invalidates your declarative statement on the issue.

Proving that "Iraq posed an existential threat, etc" has NOTHING to do with the matter we are discussing. Iraq was in violation of the terms of ceasefire from the first Gulf War. THAT is what various UN resolutions clearly indicated could (and did) trigger a response. The fact that you are incapable of understanding what a "threat" is beyond tanks rolling up on a beach is a separate matter.

You reference Koffi Annan? Really? The guy whose own son was up to his armpits in black market deals with Saddam prior to the war? No conflict of interest there? Don't be ridiculous.

When did Iraq instigate an armed attack the US?

When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq?

According to international law and the UN Charter those are the only two valid reasons for the lawful use of force between sovereign states.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was illegal.

http://cesr.org/downloads/Tearing%20up%20the%20Rules%20The%20Illegality%20of%20Invading%20IRaq%202003.pdf

So, instead of reading my reply you thought it was a better idea to just ignore it and repeat your talking points? How sophisticated.

 

[Unkotare]

When did the UN Security Council authorize an invasion of Iraq?

UN Resolutions # 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, and of course 1441 that specifically mentioned a "final opportunity to comply," ring a bell? Just because the UN is a feckless and impotent body that is better at raping civilians and spreading cholera than enforcing its own resolutions does not mean that the US would not - and will not - eventually act on those resolutions even when our spineless 'allies' would not (for a number of dishonorable reasons). Don't give me this "illegal" bullshit.

 

[Dr.Drock]

All depends on the price you put on american soldiers lives.

To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.

 

[Wicked Jester]

All depends on price you put on american soldiers lives.

To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.

The cost of american soldiers lives would have been far greater had we had to go in with Sadaam's even crazier sons running that country......And with them in power, and they would have definitely been in power, we would have had to go in at some point. That is exactly why special op's had one team assigned to hunt those two down exclusively. No way could they be allowed to survive.

Ya' see, you deniers never look at the whole picture. You live in a box filled with far left talking points. And those talking points have run their course.

All Sadaam had to do was come clean. He was given many opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents. He chose to play games. Chose to play games with the inspectors. Chose to put on a charade that he had WMD's and a production system in place. He fully admitted to his charade. Fully admitted he underestimated the United States intentions. Fully admitted he thought Bush would blink. Bush didn't blink. Bush took that sword Sadaam continually rattled, and RIGHTFULLY rammed it up his ass once and for all.

 

[Dr.Drock]

All depends on price you put on american soldiers lives.

To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.

The cost of american soldiers lives would have been far greater had we had to go in with Sadaam's even crazier sons running that country......And with them in power, and they would have definitely been in power, we would have had to go in at some point. That is exactly why special op's had one team assigned to hunt those two down exclusively.

Ya' see, you deniers never look at the whole picture. You live in a box filled with far left talking points. And those talking points have run their course.

All Sadaam had to do was come clean. He was given many opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents. He chose to play games. Chose to play games with the inspectors. Chose to put on a charade that he had WMD's and a production system in place. He fully admitted to his charade. Fully admitted he underestimated the United States intentions. Fully admitted he thought Bush would blink. Bush didn't blink. Bush took that sword Sadaam continually rattled, and RIGHTFULLY rammed it up his ass once and for all.

I'm a conservative, so going to wars to enforce UN rules and save people from an evil dictator are principles I'm against because they're liberal principles. Liberals like the UN and liberals want to save people (just look at the excuses for the Libyan War).

I'd love to see proof that not going to war with Iraq would've cost us a lot more lives of US soldiers, that'd be an entertaining read to say the least.

 

[Wicked Jester]

All depends on price you put on american soldiers lives.

To me removing Sadam from power wasn't worth the loss of one of our soldier's lives, let alone thousands and thousands.

The cost of american soldiers lives would have been far greater had we had to go in with Sadaam's even crazier sons running that country......And with them in power, and they would have definitely been in power, we would have had to go in at some point. That is exactly why special op's had one team assigned to hunt those two down exclusively.

Ya' see, you deniers never look at the whole picture. You live in a box filled with far left talking points. And those talking points have run their course.

All Sadaam had to do was come clean. He was given many opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents. He chose to play games. Chose to play games with the inspectors. Chose to put on a charade that he had WMD's and a production system in place. He fully admitted to his charade. Fully admitted he underestimated the United States intentions. Fully admitted he thought Bush would blink. Bush didn't blink. Bush took that sword Sadaam continually rattled, and RIGHTFULLY rammed it up his ass once and for all.

I'm a conservative, so going to wars to enforce UN rules and save people from an evil dictator are principles I'm against because they're liberal principles. Liberals like the UN and liberals want to save people (just look at the excuses for the Libyan War).

I'd love to see proof that not going to war with Iraq would've cost us a lot more lives of US soldiers, that'd be an entertaining read to say the least.

You need to study the dynamics of Sadaam's sons. They were being groomed to take power. Both of them were batshit crazy as all hell. Sadaam was crazy as a fox. His sons were as crazy as rabid dogs. There's a big difference.....But then, after growing up watching your father order the executions, and attending the executions of mass amounts of people, and watching him personally blow the brains out of many others right in front of them at a very young age, it's no wonder they ended up so fucked up in the head.

There's a very interesting and well done docudrama put out by the BBC, that was done in full cooperation with Sadaam's daughters....It tells exactly what went on between Sadaam and his sons. Tells exactly what their brothers were all about, far beyond what is already known of them. You get a view into their minds, and what their visions of the middle east would be under their rein. It's not a pretty picture........Look for it. They replay it 2-3 times a year on BBC america.

 

[BlindBoo]

You claimed adamently that Reagan himself gave them the gas.........You fuckin' lied.

And nowhere in your supposed report does it state factually that the US was helping them deploy gas.

You're a dishonest hack....Just admit it, and move on.

Iraq already had mustard gas before Raygun took Iraq off the nations who support terrorist. After that not only did US companies sell equipment and supplies to Iraq but also our allies in France, Great Britton, Germany also were approved to sell Western technology to Iraq. That is how he was able to develop the WMD he had. Furthermore, the Administration gave Iraq 4 billion dollars in loan gaurentees (Which he defaulted on and we the tax payer paid) from Ronnie. The attack on the Kurdish village of Habjiba was carried out with Bell Heliocopters. Guess who sold them to Iraq?

What was the Raygun Amdministration's response to the news of chemical attacks on the Kurds?

Saddam was able to develop advance WMD because he had access to Western technology. Thank Raygun.

So it's Dubya's fault that France, Briton and Germany sold supplies to Iraq, right?

(****, not being able to back quote really mangles the thread!)

Nope never said it was.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The cost of american soldiers lives would have been far greater had we had to go in with Sadaam's even crazier sons running that country......And with them in power, and they would have definitely been in power, we would have had to go in at some point. That is exactly why special op's had one team assigned to hunt those two down exclusively.

Ya' see, you deniers never look at the whole picture. You live in a box filled with far left talking points. And those talking points have run their course.

All Sadaam had to do was come clean. He was given many opportunities to do so, by three different Presidents. He chose to play games. Chose to play games with the inspectors. Chose to put on a charade that he had WMD's and a production system in place. He fully admitted to his charade. Fully admitted he underestimated the United States intentions. Fully admitted he thought Bush would blink. Bush didn't blink. Bush took that sword Sadaam continually rattled, and RIGHTFULLY rammed it up his ass once and for all.

I'm a conservative, so going to wars to enforce UN rules and save people from an evil dictator are principles I'm against because they're liberal principles. Liberals like the UN and liberals want to save people (just look at the excuses for the Libyan War).

I'd love to see proof that not going to war with Iraq would've cost us a lot more lives of US soldiers, that'd be an entertaining read to say the least.

You need to study the dynamics of Sadaam's sons. They were being groomed to take power. Both of them were batshit crazy as all hell. Sadaam was crazy as a fox. His sons were as crazy as rabid dogs. There's a big difference.....But then, after growing up watching your father order the executions, and attending the executions of mass amounts of people, and watching him personally blow the brains out of many others right in front of them at a very young age, it's no wonder they ended up so fucked up in the head.

There's a very interesting and well done docudrama put out by the BBC, that was done in full cooperation with Sadaam's daughters....It tells exactly what went on between Sadaam and his sons. Tells exactly what their brothers were all about, far beyond what is already known of them. You get a view into their minds, and what their visions of the middle east would be under their rein. It's not a pretty picture........Look for it. They replay it 2-3 times a year on BBC america.

I already know about them, them being prone to torture and kill their own citizens doesn't make their military capable of killing even more US soldiers than what happened in the war. I'm not seeing the connection to those 2 things.

Seems like if having the sons and daddy not running was the most important thing a few bullets from a sniper would make more sense than thousands of dead american soldiers and trillions of dollars that we don't have spent.

 

[BlindBoo]

9/11/01 changed the landscape forever in my opinion...

Why, is the US going to stop ******* around in the internal affairs of other nations?

Are the powers-that-be going to deport all warmongers?

.

You have a very short memory. Iraq's Hussein sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul the evening after the Taliban surrendered. They loaded the planes down with hundreds of defeated Talibani and transported them to Iraq where Saddam reestablished numerous terrorist retraining camps in Iraq in order to do worse than take out the WTC again.

Right now American citizens remain under the US State Department's Do Not Travel to Iraq due to kidnapping and other dangerous-to-America activities that are taking place right now there because we moved too quickly to get out.

You apparently do not join the American and EU folks who think Iraq is going back to its old hate America ways.

Why the hell would you want us to put our guard down so they can finish off the rest of NYC, every nuclear power plant in the USA, etc.

Don't you ever read the newspapers?

First of all the Taliban didn't surrneder. Second if they had boarded Iraqi Jumbo jets wouldn't they have been sitting duck as we had control of the air over Afghanistan.

What newspaper published that bull shit anyway?

 

[BlindBoo]

Hans Blix​' report to the United Nations provided all the evidence necessary to justify removing Saddam, even without any input from the Bush administration.

BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal

Hans Blix also delivered information to the United Nations that resulted in sanctions against Iraq--54 altogether, I believe, before UN action was firmed up: " UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared."

Was his report was signed by him and authenticated as the truth by the UN Weapons Inspection team who found this stuff. Our troops were directed to the Kurdish villages' mass burial areas and authenticated the deaths of all those people Saddam Hussein gassed.

The man was the worst terrorist in the world in his day. Clinton and Madeline Albright backed up these allegations with our own intelligence before Bush ever became President. I read the files on Iraq in 1998 and 1999 from the State Department of Madeline Albright. The information was passed on to the Bush administration and Condoleeza Rice did her job of following the money, the munitions, and other EU authentications by checking out the facts. Saddam's case got pretty ugly, and the Secretary of State's office published and added to Mrs. Albright's info as time went on. I was very interested in Iraq, read it all. Saddam was a very, very nasty man.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I'm a conservative, so going to wars to enforce UN rules and save people from an evil dictator are principles I'm against because they're liberal principles. Liberals like the UN and liberals want to save people (just look at the excuses for the Libyan War).

I'd love to see proof that not going to war with Iraq would've cost us a lot more lives of US soldiers, that'd be an entertaining read to say the least.

You need to study the dynamics of Sadaam's sons. They were being groomed to take power. Both of them were batshit crazy as all hell. Sadaam was crazy as a fox. His sons were as crazy as rabid dogs. There's a big difference.....But then, after growing up watching your father order the executions, and attending the executions of mass amounts of people, and watching him personally blow the brains out of many others right in front of them at a very young age, it's no wonder they ended up so fucked up in the head.

There's a very interesting and well done docudrama put out by the BBC, that was done in full cooperation with Sadaam's daughters....It tells exactly what went on between Sadaam and his sons. Tells exactly what their brothers were all about, far beyond what is already known of them. You get a view into their minds, and what their visions of the middle east would be under their rein. It's not a pretty picture........Look for it. They replay it 2-3 times a year on BBC america.

I already know about them, them being prone to torture and kill their own citizens doesn't make their military capable of killing even more US soldiers than what happened in the war. I'm not seeing the connection to those 2 things.

Seems like if having the sons and daddy not running was the most important thing a few bullets from a sniper would make more sense than thousands of dead american soldiers and trillions of dollars that we don't have spent.

If all it took was "a few bullets" from a snipers rifle, it would have been done.

This isn't the movies. This isn't Rambo running a lone mission.

 

[BlindBoo]

Saddam was a very, very nasty man.

Yes he was. I can name at least 15 other leaders that are just a nasty today.

Do you think that we should invade and topple each of those? If not, why are they different than Saddam?

Do you see a time when we won't be invading a country to topple someone we think is 'nasty'? How do you plan to pay for all of these invasions anyway?

Ok, so what happens when someone thinks our President is 'nasty'? Would you advocate for them to invade to topple him or her?
Of course you wouldn't and for very valid reasons.

Psst, let me tell you a secret... those same reasons and rules apply to the US and Bush.

Fine. I'll have a list of the 15 leaders who murdered 1.5 million Arabs in less than 25 years on my desk by the morning.

Bush set free 50,000,000 Arabs during his term and deposed two virulent anti-American dictators. Right now, pulling troops out of those areas is causing the Secretary of State to post warnings to American citizens to not travel into these lands.

The ugly truth is that Obama is squandering a trillion dollars and decimating American wealth in order to push his selfish agendas of arrogant pride on how he hurt and got rid of all America's mean old wealthy people who gave for years to lift other desperate countries of cruel political circumstance.

He's gonna make goddamned sure we have zero wealthy people so he can be jackass robin hoodlum of the year in the next Sharia State - Sweden.

Returning to the 39% tax rate from 36% is decimating American Wealth?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You need to study the dynamics of Sadaam's sons. They were being groomed to take power. Both of them were batshit crazy as all hell. Sadaam was crazy as a fox. His sons were as crazy as rabid dogs. There's a big difference.....But then, after growing up watching your father order the executions, and attending the executions of mass amounts of people, and watching him personally blow the brains out of many others right in front of them at a very young age, it's no wonder they ended up so fucked up in the head.

There's a very interesting and well done docudrama put out by the BBC, that was done in full cooperation with Sadaam's daughters....It tells exactly what went on between Sadaam and his sons. Tells exactly what their brothers were all about, far beyond what is already known of them. You get a view into their minds, and what their visions of the middle east would be under their rein. It's not a pretty picture........Look for it. They replay it 2-3 times a year on BBC america.

I already know about them, them being prone to torture and kill their own citizens doesn't make their military capable of killing even more US soldiers than what happened in the war. I'm not seeing the connection to those 2 things.

Seems like if having the sons and daddy not running was the most important thing a few bullets from a sniper would make more sense than thousands of dead american soldiers and trillions of dollars that we don't have spent.

If all it took was "a few bullets" from a snipers rifle, it would have been done.

This isn't the movies. This isn't Rambo running a lone mission.

I'm not the one who suggested Sadam and his sons were the problem, you did. If that's the case, sniper bullets work fine. I would've been against that as well, but not against it to the level I was the war.

Installing an islamic democracy doesn't mean they'll be our pals, us caring about an islamic democracy was just a lie, look at our dear friends in Saudi Arabia. They're a close ally of ours and they live by strict, abide or die, Sharia law and there's been democracies in the Middle East we've hated (Palestine, Syria, we hated Iran's former actual democracy, etc).

 

[BlindBoo]

The US invasion of Iraq was not "illegal," and you and yours will find it harder and harder to deny the sweep of history that is playing out before us.

Since the sovereign nation of Iraq posed no threat to the existence of the world's only superpower, the US invasion and occupation was and is illegal under international law. Those who seek to rewrite history should start by explaining why Ahmad Chalabi fired tens of thousands of capable Iraqi bureaucrats in the spring of 2003, marking the beginning of Iraq's descent into looting.

The US invasion of Iraq was NOT "illegal." Iraq was in violation of the terms of ceasefire from the first Gulf War, and several UN resolutions made provision for consequences to such behavior. Argue about the details all you want, but the invasion was NOT "illegal" and will never be treated as such.

There is no UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2003. The US invasion violates the UN Charter. SCR 1441 was accepted by the other permanment members of the SC because the only course of action it prescribed if Saddam interfered with the weapons inspector was to reconviene to determine what course of action to take. SCR 1441 superceeds all other resolution on the matter.

 

[Nic_Driver]

He says as the Arab Spring rolls on...

Who says?

"The illegal American invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation was so epochal a catastrophe that it spawned a negative phrase in Arabic, “to Iraqize” or `arqana. Tonight I heard an Alarabiya anchor ask a spokesman for the new government in Libya whether there as a danger of the country being 'Iraqized.'

"He was taken aback and asked her what she meant.

"Apparently she meant chaos, civil war, no services, etc. (Those Neoconservatives who trumpet their Iraq misadventure as a predecessor to the Arab Spring should take a lesson; no one cites Iraq among the youth movements except as an example of what must be avoided)..."

How to Avoid Bush's Iraq Mistakes in Libya | Informed Comment

The US invasion of Iraq was not "illegal," and you and yours will find it harder and harder to deny the sweep of history that is playing out before us.

Yes it was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Arab Spring is not the result of the Iraqi War. What a stupidly ignorant statement.

Oh no, just a coincidence that one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world was replaced with a representative democracy and suddenly all these things started happening (don't forget kids, it didn't start in Tunisia but well before).

Not all democracies are good, don't you get that? Look at Hamas, or look at Iran. That is where the Iraqi government is heading, into an alliance with Iran against us, and putting women into 4th class citizenship. You do not understand that coincidence is not causality.

You are saying then, for the record, you are happy that Iraq will ally with Iran and terrorize its women. Got that.