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

[JRK]

This works..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...s-book-points-to-saudis-and-bush-coverup.html

Covering up Saudi involvement.

Sallow what lies did GWB tell?
same ones the UN was telling?
or was it really not that far from the truth?

where do you want to start?
yellow cake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."


what next? WMDs
American Forces Press Service
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

whose lies were the worst, or were they lies at all?
Chief 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."[115] 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.[115]
you keep telling me I am lying
this does include the 6500 munitions (6000, we found over 500) that the UN claimed Saddam had also

The Bush administration told a lot of lies and tried to cover up Saudi involvement.

Doesn't matter..he's out of the white house and the damage to our economy, to our international prestige and our military has been done.

My hope is that this gets fully vetted and legislation is created to stop this from happening again.

9-11 from occurring again?
allowing another Saddam?
I am all for both

You know what amazes me about the Saudis and your claims? we had a base in Saudi to defend them from Saddam that we closed after we invaded
Now are you sure that what you have been told and now your repeating is the truth?

and as far as the economy goes we had 5% UE up until the dems took congress and had a deficit of 163 billion with the last GOP budget
just information
one other thing
If we are so hated, then why did 54 other countries invade Iraq with us?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not a declaration of war you idiot.

It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

{a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict}

War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hey, if you were educated beyond the third grade, you wouldn't be an Obamabot leftist....

 

[Nic_Driver]

That's not a declaration of war you idiot.

It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

{a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict}

War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hey, if you were educated beyond the third grade, you wouldn't be an Obamabot leftist....

It's still not a declaration of war.

Do you even know the difference? I learned that way back in the third grade, too bad the public school system failed you so miserably.

 

[Nic_Driver]

It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

BWAHAHAHA!!! A political goal? Congress authorized an invasion for a political goal? What goal is that? To get Bush re-elected?

Epic fail there junior.

 

[JRK]

That's not a declaration of war you idiot.

It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

{a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict}

War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hey, if you were educated beyond the third grade, you wouldn't be an Obamabot leftist....

Let me add
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

Arguing that Hussein wasn't a threat in the middle east is a non-starter. He clearly was. The technology is the threat far more then the stockpiles. We know he had them because he used them against Iran as well as in Kuwait and to murder his own people. This is why I don't support my own anti-war "allies." They have to keep going to this brain dead argument.

The reason not to do it is because we don't belong in the middle east at all. We have to remove our troops and not be involved in every conflict. Let them handle their own problems and let the Euros deal with it. In that way we would have fewer enemies in the world. Just because someone's a bad guy or a bully doesn't mean I need to challenge them to a fight. But to argue that Hussein wasn't a threat because we didn't find stockpiles of WMD's is just frankly retarded. You've got the right side, now argue the right reason.

Iraq was a threat after the support he recieved from the Raygun and the West. Which is where he got the technology as well as the precursor chemical and biological agents to develop such weapons in the first place. However it is simply not true that he was a credible threat even in conventional term to his neighbors much less the worlds remaining superpower. Both Powell and Rice are on record saying as much. Iraq was not a threat worth the life of one single American soldier.

First what your opinion of what that soldier who made those sacrifices is non of your ******* business
That between that soldier and the sacrifices HE or SHE made along with the REASONS
not you! not Powell! not Rice!

Stock piles of wmds?
do you want to do this 4 ever?
did Iraq do the following?
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.

Iraq set tougher weapons test by Blix - Times Online

Please take note that the 6500 missing munitions is at 6000 now as we found over 500 of them after we invaded
From the DOD

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and last but not least
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

Please stop lying BOO
you being against the war is your right
telling those kids who volunteered to be there your against it is not
using reasons to support your beliefs that do not exist is not your right

Nothing on your list was produced after the 1991 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. It is a mere fraction of the amount of mutitions that Iraq verifiably destroyed.

One more time. The Bush adminstrations claim was that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling new Chemical and Biological weapon and had an active unclear weapons program, not that he had a small percent of his former stockpiles that the weapons inspectors could not verifiy had been destroyed.

Early in 2001 both Powell and Rice proclaimed that Iraq was boxed in and could not even project conventional power against it's neighbors and had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs.

My opinion is that the threat that Iraq poised to the worlds remaining superpower was not worth the life of one US Soldier. Furthermore I feel that the POTUS recklessly spent the lives of 4000+ Americans as political capital he garnish from the tragedy of 9-11.

 

[BlindBoo]

sing your logic then we did the right thing invading Iraq. The person who did the first WTC bombing in 93 was an Iraqi citizen
Denial?
There is nothing but information in that thread.
Ethanol failed
Obama gave GM 50 billion of our wealth and the they cannot give the volt away still

What does Iraq suppling 3% of the worlds oil or have to do with denial, in fact i am a firm supporter of nuclear energy as well as the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up.

Understanding a liberal is so hard for us that live in realville. Stop an re read mu thread
its just information, thats all
how many people Saddam killed
Info on WMDs
how much oil that Iraq supplies the world

etc....

But, that is simply wrong.
Why not follow your own advice and do some research rather than simply repeating untrue partisan talking points?

US Oil Production Forecast to Increase | HeatingOil.com
US oil production is forecast to increase in 2011 and 2012 thanks to more unconventional domestic shale reserves being tapped, the Energy Department says.

U.S. Oil Production to Increase 25% by 2016 - Is There a Way to Play It? - Seeking Alpha
According to the US government’s Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day – its highest level since 2002. The rise enabled a 2 per cent drop in US oil imports to 9.45m b/d, in spite of rising demand as the economy recovered. US oil imports have fallen steadily since 2006.


FT.com / Companies / Oil & Gas - US oil production revives despite offshore disruption
US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques .

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay are in decline. Currently about seven hundred thousand barrels a day are sent to Valdez. Since the administration and the Green movement have killed ANWR and any other oil fields close by, the pipeline is in danger of clogs and corroding due to the lack of oil flowing and the temperature. Without some sort of technical cure to the pipeline, we lose it soon.
Call it PERMIT-GATE.

» Clearing-up Today’s Obama Energy Lies - Big Government
This afternoon the President of the United States tried one again to mislead the public about domestic oil production and how much untapped oil is left in the ground. He said that domestic oil production is at the highest level in seven years and he indicated that American reserves are not adequate to help the US reduced its dependence on foreign oil. If Congressman Wilson was in the audience he might have repeated his famous shout “You Lie.”

Domestic Oil Production.
Obama commented that US oil production was at its highest point in seven years. That was both incorrect and misleading. Daily average production of oil last year 5,361,000 barrels/day the best since 2005’s 5,419,000/day. The real misleading fact about his statement, is that neither year is even close to levels seen only ten years before when production was 20% higher.

The President mentioned 35 offshore contracts were awarded, hiding the fact that off shore oil production has been way down since 2005, and that production took a big drop as soon as Obama took office (even before BP)

Source for both charts above the US Energy Information Administration.
Domestic Supply The President grossly undersold America’s oil supply saying that we only have 2% of the worlds supply. OK he didn’t undersell, he lied big time. The number is America’s proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil is clearly false.
A 2009 study by the non partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) sheds light on America’s energy resources. It shows show the U.S. supply of recoverable oil to be 167 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of replacing America’s current imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years. And that’s just the oil, when you include gas and coal, the U.S. has energy reserves the equivalent of 1.3 trillion barrels.

On top of that there is more Oil to find. For example, in 2008 the US Geological Survey announced that the Arctic holds about 90 BILLION barrels of Oil, more than Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined about one third of the reserves are in Alaskan waters. In the graph below the darker the blue the better the probability of Oil. In the map below the darker the green the more oil. The Dark green area between five and six o’clock is in Alaska territory, which is just under 30 Billion Barrels of Oil. And just like anything else in this world, politics will play a huge part in how soon we can get to it


Oil Companies Are Not Using The Leases They Have.
The President said the “Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren’t producing a thing.” and he said he wants to “encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold.”
If Obama is telling the truth, those oil companies must be run by idiots, paying for leases but not getting the product out of the ground so they can make money. Thankfully for those who hold stock in big oil, it isn’t that the oil companies are run by idiots its that the President thinks the American people are idiots and will believe that particular pack of lies.
A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to government red-tape, which has gotten more complected under the Obama administration, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government’s refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
The truth is, ever since Barack Obama took office the President has been making it more difficult to exploit our own energy resources, one of his first actions was having the Secretary of the Interior cancel leases to exploit our shale oil reserves in Utah. It seems as if President Obama’s energy policy consists of making America more dependent on foreign oil.

Does that make you feel better?

Nah, here see for youself.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Even if we hit the peek production of the 70's it would still be about half of what we consume.

It's all about cheap oil

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK and Uncensored continue running around in circles crying and sighing, whining and pining, cringing and whinging as they continue to have the mirror held up to their faces so they can see just how stupidly silly they are in argument.

 

[BlindBoo]

If I remember correctly, the whole premise for this war was based on the existance of WMD and Saddam's refusal to allow proper monitoring.

Stabilizing Iraq and creating a Republic were later justifications that the Bush Administration was forced to invent as face saving measures when no WMD could be found!

Try reading the actual resolution..... it will keep you from sounding this ignorant again....

I love how little idiot BlindBoo sends a mini-neg-rep saying this is nonsense.... when it is easily proven.... you see.. there was more than WoMD in the resolution

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

So... shut the **** up idiot... you're pwned

Actually, the neg & message was returned to you for your own neg and saying I lied without providing any rebuttal post. Furthermore, the President didn't satisfy the conditions the Congress placed on him for military action in Iraq. It's all right there in the text of that resolution, you should read it sometime. Congress didn't have the balls to call him on it.

FU.

 

[Contumacious]

That's not a declaration of war you idiot.

It is congressional declaration and authorization to use armed force to achieve a political goal against the nation of Iraq.

{a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict}

War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hey, if you were educated beyond the third grade, you wouldn't be an Obamabot leftist....

Let me add
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me add

The Federal Government's authority is limited to those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

But the scumbags who pretend to be Justices of the Supreme Court have allowed the federal government to become a massive welfare/warfare behemoth.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

Specifically

the oil shale we have in abundance right here in this country. Obama is the one holding that up

He is not holding it up.

Really?

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday reversed yet another Bush-era policy, scrapping leases for oil-shale development on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
Only on msnbc.com
A day in the life of Iran’s president
Obama: We’re not where we need to be
Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed
No promotion yet? Maybe you're not the boss' favorite
USDA bans six new E. coli strains from meat supply
How 9/11 changed Pakistan
It's A Snap! Vote for your favorite travel photo
Citing environmental and economic concerns, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar withdrew a proposal for expanded research and development leases and shelved a planned second round.
"We need to push forward aggressively with research, development and demonstration of oil shale technologies to see if we can find a safe and economically viable way to unlock these resources on a commercial scale," he said in a statement.
Salazar rescinded a lease offer made last month for research, development and demonstration projects that could have led to oil-shale works on 1.9 million acres in the three states, greatly expanding the program.
"I am withdrawing that Jan. 14 solicitation because in my view it was a midnight decision, and it was flawed," Salazar told reporters on a teleconference call from Washington, D.C.
He said he also is scrapping an initial 5 percent royalty rate on oil-shale production, saying the rate "sells taxpayers short." Conventional oil and gas production on public land produces royalties of up to 18.8 percent.

got to have pipelines sense new refinaries in new locales will not be permitted
Dirty Oil Sands | SENATE LEADERS RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT TAR SANDS PIPELINE

The Folly of Oil Shale - Reports Highlight the Tremendous Risks with this Dirtiest of Fuels | Bobby McEnaney's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Not to be confused with:

Bakken Shale Formation Oil - North Dakota and Montana - USGS

 

[BlindBoo]

Try reading the actual resolution..... it will keep you from sounding this ignorant again....

I love how little idiot BlindBoo sends a mini-neg-rep saying this is nonsense.... when it is easily proven.... you see.. there was more than WoMD in the resolution

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

So... shut the **** up idiot... you're pwned

So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?

Don't know about that but doubt it will never be called illegal by the UNSC. But then again we do have the veto power.....

 

[JRK]

Iraq was a threat after the support he recieved from the Raygun and the West. Which is where he got the technology as well as the precursor chemical and biological agents to develop such weapons in the first place. However it is simply not true that he was a credible threat even in conventional term to his neighbors much less the worlds remaining superpower. Both Powell and Rice are on record saying as much. Iraq was not a threat worth the life of one single American soldier.

First what your opinion of what that soldier who made those sacrifices is non of your ******* business
That between that soldier and the sacrifices HE or SHE made along with the REASONS
not you! not Powell! not Rice!

Stock piles of wmds?
do you want to do this 4 ever?
did Iraq do the following?
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.

Iraq set tougher weapons test by Blix - Times Online

Please take note that the 6500 missing munitions is at 6000 now as we found over 500 of them after we invaded
From the DOD

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
and last but not least
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080707/pl_afp/usiraqcanadauraniumnuclear_080707154601

Quote, July 7, 2008: "At Iraq's request, the US military this year transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.

The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

..Again! more evidence that Saddam HAD materials for WMDs!

Please stop lying BOO
you being against the war is your right
telling those kids who volunteered to be there your against it is not
using reasons to support your beliefs that do not exist is not your right

Nothing on your list was produced after the 1991 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait. It is a mere fraction of the amount of mutitions that Iraq verifiably destroyed.

One more time. The Bush adminstrations claim was that Iraq was actively producing and stockpiling new Chemical and Biological weapon and had an active unclear weapons program, not that he had a small percent of his former stockpiles that the weapons inspectors could not verifiy had been destroyed.

Early in 2001 both Powell and Rice proclaimed that Iraq was boxed in and could not even project conventional power against it's neighbors and had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs.

My opinion is that the threat that Iraq poised to the worlds remaining superpower was not worth the life of one US Soldier. Furthermore I feel that the POTUS recklessly spent the lives of 4000+ Americans as political capital he garnish from the tragedy of 9-11.

There was no time table put on these weapons and stating "dont worry about those that are older than X amount of years"

Early in 2003 GWB proclaimed he had enough
Middle of 2002, congress proclaimed the same

With respect let me explain to you the reason why we invaded, the "smoking gun"
Chief 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."[115] 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.[115]
He also (Blix/UN) had claimed there was 6500 munitions missing also
from the same day
What Iraq must do:

Guarantee safety of U2 surveillance flights over Iraq; Stop harassing UN inspectors; Explain production of more of the nerve agent VX than declared; Account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from Iraq-Iran War; Account for 6,500 missing chemical rockets; Produce evidence that it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; Declare whereabouts of 650kg of bacterial growth media, enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax; Halt production of Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah with a range beyond the 150km limit; Reveal whereabouts of 380 rocket engines, smuggled into Iraq last month with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems; Provide more names of scientists involved in weapons of mass destruction. So far only 400 of an estimated 3,500 people have been named; Provide scientists for private interview; Hand over sensitive documents hidden in private homes and documents detailing purchase or destruction of suspect materials; Search for banned weapons and destroy them under UN supervision.

all of this stuff is from the UN, not GWB, not from the CIA
when this speech was made, Jan 2003 GWB said thats enough

This stuff existed according to the UN and we have never found most of it, this was what GWB was trying to prevent
by the way you realize that Saddam had buried his fighter jets in the desert dont you, they were found

 

[BlindBoo]

Try reading the actual resolution..... it will keep you from sounding this ignorant again....

I love how little idiot BlindBoo sends a mini-neg-rep saying this is nonsense.... when it is easily proven.... you see.. there was more than WoMD in the resolution

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

So... shut the **** up idiot... you're pwned

Man nothing could be this simple
congress authorizes2002
we attack 2003
we show proof to congress that validates there (meets) there criteria (congress 2006)
We find more proof 2008, never is presented to congress as it is not needed

reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

The Bush Administration signed on to SCR 1441, which had no military trigger, and breached it with the invasion and occupation when no new stockpiles WMD were found without which Iraq was not a significant threat to the US. Certainly not worth the lives of 4000+ servicemen and women. There was never any compelling evidence linking Iraq to 9-11.

Yeah simple.

 

[JRK]

Yeah.

It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.

Then who do you put in jail?

Who?

No US President has been jailed after leaving office (Although Conservatives tried to break that protocol with President Clinton over nonsense)..

Do I think that President Bush and the Vice President Cheney should be put into jail for this? Sure..but it would not be practical and would violate a great many unwritten rules.

So what should happen? An honest investigation as to what exactly happened..and why..then legislation that explicitly limits the use of force. Personally, I don't want to see the President's power to use force diminished..but he or she should not be able to commit troops to a country and not have a rational reason to do so. And it should be a crime to lie to the people..followed by impeachment and removal from office.

No one broke any laws
to make that accusation only shows your age, and you have to be smarter than that
Tell you what
tell me what laws were broke?
This is how far your argument got
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
[edit]

 

[BlindBoo]

What if Saddam had 16 UN resolutions against what he was doing, idb?

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

Saddam Hussein decided to undo the American win in Afghanistan in 2002. On the day America was victorious over al Qaeda and Taliban, Saddam sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul at midnight that night that removed over a thousand of them so they would avoid facing war crimes and other amenities of murdering thousands of people until America stopped them. The Jumbo Jets arrived a few hours later in Baghdad. We tracked them, and there is no mistake what happened after that. Saddam set them up in more camps near the airport and gave them full run of his land with privileges. He rewarded families of the 9/11 hijackers with remunderative amounts that are staggering when you think of the evil these murdering monsters did here.

The United Nations does not prevent countries from defending themselves from terrorists and criminally-bent haters. When the threat transferred to Iraq, that's when we developed a 41-nation coalition against Saddam Hussein which grew to 80 later on.

We had every right to stop Saddam Hussein from giving succor and power to these anti-American criminals, and we did. His own people tried, convicted, and executed him for war crimes he did.

If the above bold text were fact based don't you think that President Bush would have used that as a reason to go after Saddam. But despite the fact we controlled the air space over Afghanistan at the time why did we let them escape?

 

[JRK]

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

Saddam Hussein decided to undo the American win in Afghanistan in 2002. On the day America was victorious over al Qaeda and Taliban, Saddam sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul at midnight that night that removed over a thousand of them so they would avoid facing war crimes and other amenities of murdering thousands of people until America stopped them. The Jumbo Jets arrived a few hours later in Baghdad. We tracked them, and there is no mistake what happened after that. Saddam set them up in more camps near the airport and gave them full run of his land with privileges. He rewarded families of the 9/11 hijackers with remunderative amounts that are staggering when you think of the evil these murdering monsters did here.

The United Nations does not prevent countries from defending themselves from terrorists and criminally-bent haters. When the threat transferred to Iraq, that's when we developed a 41-nation coalition against Saddam Hussein which grew to 80 later on.

We had every right to stop Saddam Hussein from giving succor and power to these anti-American criminals, and we did. His own people tried, convicted, and executed him for war crimes he did.

If the above bold text were fact based don't you think that President Bush would have used that as a reason to go after Saddam. But despite the fact we controlled the air space over Afghanistan at the time why did we let them escape?

Boo what you do not was there was so many legitimate reasons to go after Saddam why would you need more?
you under some assumption someone did something wrong or had lied to invade
Your dead wrong
The UN made the claim he had all these weapons and anthrax as well as nerve gas
come to find out he did have some and had control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake

And as far as the stuff we did not find, its kind of like the fighter jets Saddam buried in the desert
winds and tail pieces being exposed is the only reason we found those

 

[BlindBoo]

There is NOTHING illegal... It was a military action (not a war) that was legally signed off on... and no, there was more than WoMD in the justification...

So now we know you're an idiot as well

I'm sure everyone victimised by the US feels better that it was a 'military action' rather than a 'war'.

And some of the justification was that it was in support of the United Nations resolutions.
But...the UN never asked for the invasion (sorry, 'military action'), so how can that be a legal justification?

Idiot.. the UN is not the end-all-be-all world government that negates our sovereignty... that are set up as humanitarian and to settle disputes diplomatically when possible,,, they are not where the buck stops

The UN was specifically set up to:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Nothing in that document abrogates our sovereignty.

 

[JRK]

I'm sure everyone victimised by the US feels better that it was a 'military action' rather than a 'war'.

And some of the justification was that it was in support of the United Nations resolutions.
But...the UN never asked for the invasion (sorry, 'military action'), so how can that be a legal justification?

Idiot.. the UN is not the end-all-be-all world government that negates our sovereignty... that are set up as humanitarian and to settle disputes diplomatically when possible,,, they are not where the buck stops

The UN was specifically set up to:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

Nothing in that document abrogates our sovereignty.

Are you trying to say that the UN super cedes the US constitution, the congress as well as the 2 other branches of the US government?
what about the 54 other countries that invaded with us?

 

[BlindBoo]

I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US and the 54 other countries that invade Iraq with the US

In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms

In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions

March 2003 we attack

2006 The DOD presets congress with the absolute proof that Saddam had been lying and that the 500+ munitions that had been found that were classified as WMDs had not been destroyed and could have been part of the total of 6500 that 6000 of those are still missing
Icing on the cake came in 2008 when it went public that the US had took control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake after we invade
It is anyones guess who had control of it prior to the, but we do know that Saddam had control of it as late as 2003

Guys thats as legal is it gets and as good a reason to have taken Saddam out as there could have been
he was a liar
a murderer (over 800,000, maybe 1 million murdered)
and he had stock piles of WMDs that he was not suppose to have any, PERIOD

Feb 14 2003.

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner.


Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | guardian.co.uk