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

[BlindBoo]

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN.

No.... the ceasefire was between the states in conflict. It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question. It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.

In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses...

Really? Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding. Period.

The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended. In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

" I am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and 6 weeks since the start of Desert Storm, all United States and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. It is up to Iraq whether this suspension on the part of the coalition becomes a permanent cease-fire.

Coalition political and military terms for a formal cease-fire include the following requirements:

Iraq must release immediately all coalition prisoners of war, third country nationals, and the remains of all who have fallen. Iraq must release all Kuwaiti detainees. Iraq also must inform Kuwaiti authorities of the location and nature of all land and sea mines. Iraq must comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes a rescinding of Iraq's August decision to annex Kuwait and acceptance in principle of Iraq's responsibility to pay compensation for the loss, damage, and injury its aggression has caused.

The coalition calls upon the Iraqi Government to designate military commanders to meet within 48 hours with their coalition counterparts at a place in the theater of operations to be specified to arrange for military aspects of the cease-fire. Further, I have asked Secretary of State Baker to request that the United Nations Security Council meet to formulate the necessary arrangements for this war to be ended.

This suspension of offensive combat operations is contingent upon Iraq's not firing upon any coalition forces and not launching Scud missiles against any other country. If Iraq violates these terms, coalition forces will be free to resume military operations."

The terms were solidified in SCR 687 which was accepted by the Security Councel on April 3 1991. There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement. The violations you claim make the invasion and occupation justifiable are in that agreement, not the term of the ceasefire order given by President Bush on Feb 27

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

 

[JRK]

As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN.

No.... the ceasefire was between the states in conflict. It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question. It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.

In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses...

Really? Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding. Period.

The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended. In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

" I am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and 6 weeks since the start of Desert Storm, all United States and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. It is up to Iraq whether this suspension on the part of the coalition becomes a permanent cease-fire.

Coalition political and military terms for a formal cease-fire include the following requirements:

Iraq must release immediately all coalition prisoners of war, third country nationals, and the remains of all who have fallen. Iraq must release all Kuwaiti detainees. Iraq also must inform Kuwaiti authorities of the location and nature of all land and sea mines. Iraq must comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes a rescinding of Iraq's August decision to annex Kuwait and acceptance in principle of Iraq's responsibility to pay compensation for the loss, damage, and injury its aggression has caused.

The coalition calls upon the Iraqi Government to designate military commanders to meet within 48 hours with their coalition counterparts at a place in the theater of operations to be specified to arrange for military aspects of the cease-fire. Further, I have asked Secretary of State Baker to request that the United Nations Security Council meet to formulate the necessary arrangements for this war to be ended.

This suspension of offensive combat operations is contingent upon Iraq's not firing upon any coalition forces and not launching Scud missiles against any other country. If Iraq violates these terms, coalition forces will be free to resume military operations."

The terms were solidified in SCR 687 which was accepted by the Security Councel on April 3 1991. There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement. The violations you claim make the invasion and occupation justifiable are in that agreement, not the term of the ceasefire order given by President Bush on Feb 27

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

are you the same Guy that keeps quoting the UN as it is some kind of, look in respect to your opinion, I will stop there
Iraq has 1000 chances to do the right thing
after 9-11 they knew better

 

[BlindBoo]

No.... the ceasefire was between the states in conflict. It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question. It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.

Really? Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding. Period.

The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended. In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

" I am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and 6 weeks since the start of Desert Storm, all United States and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. It is up to Iraq whether this suspension on the part of the coalition becomes a permanent cease-fire.

Coalition political and military terms for a formal cease-fire include the following requirements:

Iraq must release immediately all coalition prisoners of war, third country nationals, and the remains of all who have fallen. Iraq must release all Kuwaiti detainees. Iraq also must inform Kuwaiti authorities of the location and nature of all land and sea mines. Iraq must comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes a rescinding of Iraq's August decision to annex Kuwait and acceptance in principle of Iraq's responsibility to pay compensation for the loss, damage, and injury its aggression has caused.

The coalition calls upon the Iraqi Government to designate military commanders to meet within 48 hours with their coalition counterparts at a place in the theater of operations to be specified to arrange for military aspects of the cease-fire. Further, I have asked Secretary of State Baker to request that the United Nations Security Council meet to formulate the necessary arrangements for this war to be ended.

This suspension of offensive combat operations is contingent upon Iraq's not firing upon any coalition forces and not launching Scud missiles against any other country. If Iraq violates these terms, coalition forces will be free to resume military operations."

The terms were solidified in SCR 687 which was accepted by the Security Councel on April 3 1991. There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement. The violations you claim make the invasion and occupation justifiable are in that agreement, not the term of the ceasefire order given by President Bush on Feb 27

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

are you the same Guy that keeps quoting the UN as it is some kind of, look in respect to your opinion, I will stop there
Iraq has 1000 chances to do the right thing
after 9-11 they knew better

No please go on because I don't believe you respect anyone's opinion you suspect of being an anti-war liberal. It the UN and it's security councel's resolutions that are under discussion. Specifically this was an answer to M14 Shooter most recent claim about the cease-fire.

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war. President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Speaking of which...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-iraqi-war-was-a-failure-8.html#post3398740

I've answered multiple times now. You just keep ignoring it and saying I haven't answered. Open your eyes and read.

No, no you haven't.
All you've done is claim that the UN cannot pass any such prohibition.
This does not address the question I asked.

Re-read the question and then make at least a half-hearted attempt to address it.

 

[DiamondDave]

The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended. In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

" I am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and 6 weeks since the start of Desert Storm, all United States and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. It is up to Iraq whether this suspension on the part of the coalition becomes a permanent cease-fire.

Coalition political and military terms for a formal cease-fire include the following requirements:

Iraq must release immediately all coalition prisoners of war, third country nationals, and the remains of all who have fallen. Iraq must release all Kuwaiti detainees. Iraq also must inform Kuwaiti authorities of the location and nature of all land and sea mines. Iraq must comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. This includes a rescinding of Iraq's August decision to annex Kuwait and acceptance in principle of Iraq's responsibility to pay compensation for the loss, damage, and injury its aggression has caused.

The coalition calls upon the Iraqi Government to designate military commanders to meet within 48 hours with their coalition counterparts at a place in the theater of operations to be specified to arrange for military aspects of the cease-fire. Further, I have asked Secretary of State Baker to request that the United Nations Security Council meet to formulate the necessary arrangements for this war to be ended.

This suspension of offensive combat operations is contingent upon Iraq's not firing upon any coalition forces and not launching Scud missiles against any other country. If Iraq violates these terms, coalition forces will be free to resume military operations."

The terms were solidified in SCR 687 which was accepted by the Security Councel on April 3 1991. There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement. The violations you claim make the invasion and occupation justifiable are in that agreement, not the term of the ceasefire order given by President Bush on Feb 27

RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

are you the same Guy that keeps quoting the UN as it is some kind of, look in respect to your opinion, I will stop there
Iraq has 1000 chances to do the right thing
after 9-11 they knew better

No please go on because I don't believe you respect anyone's opinion you suspect of being an anti-war liberal. It the UN and it's security councel's resolutions that are under discussion. Specifically this was an answer to M14 Shooter most recent claim about the cease-fire.

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war. President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.

Unsubstantiated fantasies as your basis again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state.

The argument I responsed to makes no such distinction.
The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.

Perhaps you need to study the history of the UN, it's Charter, and it's purpose.

I see that you didn't actually address what I wrote, and continue to avoid the questions I asked. Not a surprise.

The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States, or it is not - you do not get to pick and choose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN.

No.... the ceasefire was between the states in conflict. It was later then 'approved' by the UN in a resolution, but the insturment of cease-fire itself was between the states in question. It remains that way until an actual peace treaty is signed.

In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses...

Really? Like here?
FindLaw: Korean War Armistice Agreement: July 27, 1953
When the terms of a cease-fire are brokem the cease-fire is no longer binding. Period.

The ceasefire order was given on February 27 by George Bush.
On March 3, 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the cease-fire and the fighting ended. In his own words here is what President Bush demanded in his terms

Very good!

There is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for any violation of any on the term of that agreement.

The point you miss is that there need not be any such clause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.

This is, of course, a lie.

President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.

Prove this.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.

This is, of course, a lie.

President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.

Prove this.

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was nothing Saddam could do to avoid war.

This is, of course, a lie.

President Bush had his mind made up long before the first bombs were dropped.

Prove this.

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

Commondreams.org?


OK, so.... where's the proof that GWB had his mind made up [about going to war with Iraq] long before the first bombs were dropped?

 

[BlindBoo]

This is, of course, a lie.

Prove this.

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

Commondreams.org?


OK, so.... where's the proof that GWB had his mind made up [about going to war with Iraq] long before the first bombs were dropped?

The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.

Then there is the Downing Street memo's

What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to? The Bush Administration had decided to go to war at least one year before doing so and many months before seeking a resolution from Congress. The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law so they tried to create legal justification through manipulation of the United Nations in order to trap Saddam into violating U.N. resolutions

How Much Proof Needed Before the Truth Comes Out? by Kevin B. Zeese

Now say something about lewrockwell.com now

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.

Still waiting for proof.

Then there is the Downing Street memo's

Still waiting for proof.

What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to...

I'll take all of this as your admision you cannot prove the assertion.

 

[JRK]

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

Commondreams.org?


OK, so.... where's the proof that GWB had his mind made up [about going to war with Iraq] long before the first bombs were dropped?

The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.

Then there is the Downing Street memo's

What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to? The Bush Administration had decided to go to war at least one year before doing so and many months before seeking a resolution from Congress. The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law so they tried to create legal justification through manipulation of the United Nations in order to trap Saddam into violating U.N. resolutions

How Much Proof Needed Before the Truth Comes Out? by Kevin B. Zeese

Now say something about lewrockwell.com now

I would have hoped that our president and staff along with the military was ready to go to war 12 months prior to invasion
I am going to make this simple
Saddam caused this, no-one else
he-lied
he-lied
he-lied

9-11 came along and W said no more
leave or else

He did not leave. There was no reason for war, I agree
Saddam Hussein never realized that there would be an event that changed the game he was playing

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?

How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?

Wanna talk about the fact that OBL (who caused 9/11) has never been caught?

Nope.....the Iraq war was a horrible failure.

 

[JRK]

Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?

How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?

Wanna talk about the fact that OBL (who caused 9/11) has never been caught?

Nope.....the Iraq war was a horrible failure.

WMDs
except for these 500 hundred DOD: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria « Sister Toldjah
WMDs
except for these shipped out and the main stream media ignores
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.S. official: Iraqis told me WMDs sent to Syria
World Threats » Blog Archive » U.N. Says Iraq Shipped WMD Equipment Out of Country

OBL? how would you like to be shitting in a cave the rest of your life, he may not be caught yet but son of a ***** his life has to be a living hell

Failure?
your opinion that I would not share with a marine, you have that right and I could care less

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wanna talk about the fact that there were NO WMD'S IN IRAQ?
How about the fact that Jr.'s admin lied about it?

Sigh.
Neither you nor anyone else can show that GWB willfully made a statement he knew to be false. Thus, neither you nor anyone else can show that GWB lied.

Wanna talk about the fact that OBL (who caused 9/11) has never been caught?

Straw, man.

Nope.....the Iraq war was a horrible failure.

Not by any -rational- standard.

 

[JFK_USA]

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long...

As I said:
Not by any -rational- standard.

 

[JRK]

The fact we went in under false pretenses, stole their country, and stayed in way too long is consider a FAILURE. It was one of the worst war we ever fought. There was no victory, only shame.

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

 

[BlindBoo]

The Houston Chronicle Reporter that wrote the book still claims it as a fact.

Still waiting for proof.

Then there is the Downing Street memo's

Still waiting for proof.

What do all these leaked, confidential British memos point to...

I'll take all of this as your admision you cannot prove the assertion.

The evidence is there. You can deny it all you want. Doesn't change the facts that President Bush used the tradegy of 9-11 to drag the country into an unnecessary and illegal war of aggression.