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

[BlindBoo]

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?

No, I'm saying that the UN was set up specfically because of the scourge of war. By not allowing the inspections that we agreed to as a memeber of the UN the invasion can not be justified and can rightly be claimed a war of aggression.

 

[JRK]

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

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]
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a January 27, 2003 address before the U.N. Security Council, Blix declared that Iraq had failed to explain what happened to missing stocks of anthrax, weaponized VX nerve gas, and mustard gas-filled artillery rounds. In addition, Blix noted that the inspectors had discovered some 16 empty chemical warheads for 122 mm rockets that had apparently not been declared. Iraq claimed it had forgotten the warheads because they were in boxes similar to those used for conventional warheads. Blix also reported that inspectors had found "a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor" and a long lost document, finally turned over by the Iraqis in December, which showed that about 6,500 chemical bombs had not been accounted for, which he estimated would hold about 1,000 tons of poison gas.

Before the onset of military action on March 7, Blix filed a 173 page document claiming that Iraq might still possess 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads, and pilotless drone aircraft. The report concluded that Iraq's anthrax and any clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene) stores would still be viable if they had been properly stored, and that Iraq could easily reproduce manufacturing capability equal to the scale of its pre-1991 production of anthrax and botulinum toxin. The report also revealed that Iraq had built three new genetic engineering facilities and had resumed research on high grade missile fuel.

In a parallel report to the Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced once again that he had found no evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program at sites his teams had inspected. ElBaradei also attacked much of the evidence presented in recent months by the American and British governments to make the case that Iraq was actively importing items to make nuclear arms.
finding 550 metric tons in 03 came from where?
In his final report to the U.N. Security Council on June 5, 2003, chief weapon inspector Hans Blix emphasized that a number of questions regarding Iraq's disarmament remained unanswered. In more than 730 inspections covering 411 sites and 14 interviews with Iraqi officials, inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) were unable to verify Iraqi claims that stores of chemical and biological agents, and their munitions, were unilaterally destroyed. The report detailed activities undertaken by UNMOVIC inspectors from November 27 through March 18, including: the excavation of 128 R-400 bombs (of 157 Iraq declared it had destroyed) at the Al Azziziyah firing range; soil sample analysis at the Al Hakam dump site where Iraq claims to have disposed of anthrax stores; the destruction of 50 (of 75 deployed) Al Samoud 2 missiles; the destruction of two large propellant casting chambers at the Al Mamoun site; and the destruction of 24 chemical shells and the 49 liters of mustard gas contained in them at the Muthanna State Establishment. Blix also concluded that Iraq had been less than forthcoming about who supplied its dual-use equipment, particularly equipment that "could have contributed significantly to any missile development program." For example, in its December 2002 declaration, Iraq failed to explain the origin or the actual number of Volga engines it imported for use in the banned Al Samoud 2 missile.
Weapon update archives - index

 

[Nic_Driver]

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

March 2003 we attack

What happened between January 2003 and March of 2003?

What did Blix say about the 2 months you choose to ignore?

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Blix said it was ironic that Jack Straw was so surprised by his report to the security council in March 2003, since it presented nothing new and that in a verbal summary of the report Blix had been positive about progress. He said of Straw: "I don't think anyone else took it as sensational. It was reporting on concealment and obstruction in the 1990s, but not much more than that."

• He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."

• He said he was in favour of a second UN resolution.

• He accused the UK of becoming the "prisoner" of the American train after Lord Goldsmith "wriggled".

• He described the war as "illegal".

A lot can happen in 2 months, especially when you pretend they didn't exists.

 

[Nic_Driver]

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

March 2003 we attack

What happened between January 2003 and March of 2003?

What did Blix say about the 2 months you choose to ignore?

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Blix said it was ironic that Jack Straw was so surprised by his report to the security council in March 2003, since it presented nothing new and that in a verbal summary of the report Blix had been positive about progress. He said of Straw: "I don't think anyone else took it as sensational. It was reporting on concealment and obstruction in the 1990s, but not much more than that."

• He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."

• He said he was in favour of a second UN resolution.

• He accused the UK of becoming the "prisoner" of the American train after Lord Goldsmith "wriggled".

• He described the war as "illegal".

A lot can happen in 2 months, especially when you pretend they didn't exists.

 

[mplo]

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

Am missing something here?

Yes, imho.

First of all, the removal of Saddam Hussein was not our business. We should've let the Iraqis do it, if they'd wanted to.

Secondly, we (the United States Govt.) destabilized the country, as opposed to stabilizing it.

Thirdly, we destroyed Iraq by ripping it asunder, bankrupted our country, have refused to prosecute Cheney and G. W. Bush for getting us into Iraq in the first place, and have maimed, killed, and sickened untold numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention thousands of our own men and women GI's.

The United States' debacle in Iraq is also proof that attempting to impose a Western-style Democracy on a country that's been held together by a tyrant just simply doesn't work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's still not a declaration of war.

There will never be another formal declaration of war. What was granted meets the criteria of the "war powers act" and is sufficient for legal engagement.

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.

Too bad you didn't make it past third grade.

Of course, that's why you're a leftist.

Remember, the lower the IQ, the further to the left. It's a fundamental truth in life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

I think the term was "regime change" sparky.

BUT maybe Hillary Clinton voted to get Bush re-elected.

Or maybe you just haven't thought this through..

Epic fail there junior.

I see that, sparky.

 

[jgarden]

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

Am missing something here?

"JRK;3396617" is either in deep denial OR using USMESSAGEBOARD Forums to get his "15 minutes of fame!"

In either case, he isn't worst the expenditure of one brain cell!

 

[JRK]

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

March 2003 we attack

What happened between January 2003 and March of 2003?

What did Blix say about the 2 months you choose to ignore?

Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Blix said it was ironic that Jack Straw was so surprised by his report to the security council in March 2003, since it presented nothing new and that in a verbal summary of the report Blix had been positive about progress. He said of Straw: "I don't think anyone else took it as sensational. It was reporting on concealment and obstruction in the 1990s, but not much more than that."

• He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."

• He said he was in favour of a second UN resolution.

• He accused the UK of becoming the "prisoner" of the American train after Lord Goldsmith "wriggled".

• He described the war as "illegal".

A lot can happen in 2 months, especially when you pretend they didn't exists.

I did not ignore anything
the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing
Saddam had-had years and at the end of those years the UN still does not know were all of this stuff is?
It was over
Prisoner? what about the 54 other countries?
i dont care if he described the war as hot dog buns, he is not a US congressmen nor a senator nor the president

 

[Nic_Driver]

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

I think the term was "regime change" sparky.

BUT maybe Hillary Clinton voted to get Bush re-elected.

Or maybe you just haven't thought this through..

Epic fail there junior.

I see that, sparky.

It is illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.

Where did you get the idea that it was ok?

Oh, and an Authorization to Use Force it’s still not a Declaration of War.

 

[Nic_Driver]

the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing

The word "If" in the Authorization to Use Force says it means everything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is illegal to invade for the purpose of regime change.

Really?

Can you point out the section or amendment of the US Constitution that states such?

I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?

Where did you get the idea that it was ok?

Oh, and an Authorization to Use Force it’s still not a Declaration of War.

It's as close as we will see in our lifetimes. Political correctness ensures that war will never again be declared. But of course, it is a war, and that is what congress authorized.

Serious question, why do you think Obama hasn't ceded sovereignty and declared the USA to be subjects of the UN? This is obviously the desire and goal of the left, so why didn't Obama with the Super Majority of the extreme left he enjoyed a year ago, just do it? Then there would be no question, the security council could arrest Bush, and break up Tea Parties, why did the left squander the opportunity to change the nation into something more to their liking?

 

[Contumacious]

i dont care if he described the war as hot dog buns, he is not a US congressmen nor a senator nor the president.........

........nor a retard

We Knew Iraq Was Disarmed

by Jude Wanniski


In watching the Sunday talk shows today I was astonished at how everyone – interviewers and guests – seems to have forgotten that in the last month before President Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq it was clear we all should have known Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I'm posting below a memo I ran in this space 30 days before the war began entitled, "Finally, A Disarmed Iraq." When everyone who supports the war continues to say that EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMD, including the French, the Germans, the Russians, etc. That is true only BEFORE the UN inspectors returned and spent months going over all the possibilities. A full month before the President decided that diplomacy had failed, Baghdad addressed the only issue still outstanding on the UNMOVIC and IAEA report cards: Proving the negative.

We Knew Iraq Was Disarmed by Jude Wanniski

.

 

[JRK]

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?

No, I'm saying that the UN was set up specfically because of the scourge of war. By not allowing the inspections that we agreed to as a memeber of the UN the invasion can not be justified and can rightly be claimed a war of aggression.

Boo you have your opinion, I have no desire to change that
War of aggression? if you say so.
The inspections became mute when Blix stated that all of that "stuff' was still missing
Powell and others claimed it was being moved, time had run out

looks like now he was right. You want keep tooting the horn that states the US/GEB did something wrong'
have at it
Legally your wrong as this has all ready went to court in this country
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.[5

 

[Raoul_Duke]

I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?

The Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which says :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land


and the US is a signatory to the UN Treaty. Which is why George W Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to authorise the invasion. When one wasn't forthcoming he claimed he didn't need one and that it wasn't a question of whether he had the authority to invade but simply a question of having the will to do it.

The UN considered the invasion illegal :

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Apparently I can't post a link to the last quote but if you google it you'll get there.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

 

[JRK]

the events that took place after the 1/27/02 remarks meant nothing

The word "If" in the Authorization to Use Force says it means everything.

to whom?
Nic you keep involving the UN as when it comes to the legality of it they had a say so
If became verified
I am not sure what your trying to say

International law? of course there was 54 other countries who invaded with us
would they not be as guilty as you think we are?

Its all ready passed the legal test in the US, it got thrown out of court out of the gate before we even invaded

 

[JRK]

I mean, you DO understand that we are governed by the Constitution, and not the dictates of UN apparatchiks, don't you?

The Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which says :

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land


and the US is a signatory to the UN Treaty. Which is why George W Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to authorise the invasion. When one wasn't forthcoming he claimed he didn't need one and that it wasn't a question of whether he had the authority to invade but simply a question of having the will to do it.

The UN considered the invasion illegal :

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Apparently I can't post a link to the last quote but if you google it you'll get there.

So your trying to say that this clause over-rides the US congress?
this matter has been to court in the US by the way, and there is no mention of this supremacy clause
would you mind explaining that?

never mind

Supremacy Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of America


This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I · II · III · IV · V
VI · VII · VIII · IX · X
Subsequent Amendments
XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV
XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · XX
XXI · XXII · XXIII · XXIV · XXV
XXVI · XXVII
Unratified Amendments
I(1) · XIII(1) · XIII(2) · XX(1) · XXVII(1) · XXVII(2)
Other countries · Law Portal
view · talk · edit
Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, known as Supremacy of National Law , establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

you want to try that again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[Uncensored2008]

and the US is a signatory to the UN Treaty. Which is why George W Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to authorise the invasion. When one wasn't forthcoming he claimed he didn't need one and that it wasn't a question of whether he had the authority to invade but simply a question of having the will to do it.

The UN considered the invasion illegal :

UN resolutions are not ratified treaty. If they were, the stars and stripes would have been put down decades ago.

We have an obligation to engage in negotiations with the UN per the charter. We did not cede sovereignty, regardless of how desperately you wish it were so.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

**** Kofi Annan, Crooked little shithead is a criminal who mourns the loss of embezzlement of "oil for food funds."

Apparently I can't post a link to the last quote but if you google it you'll get there.

 

[JRK]

As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why