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

[JRK]

Wow I am amazed at your dazzling display of ESP and communication with the dead.

Fact is the UN did not authorized any member state to remove Saddam's governement from power did they?

The US accused Iraq of actively producing and stockpiling massive amounts of Chemical and Biological weapons did they not? They were also accused of having an active nuclear program correct?

The small amount of muntions that are missing from their once hugh stockpile of weapons doesn't represent a grave enough threat to spend the lives of our proud volunteers in the military, IMHO.

The amount of mis information that you libs re peat is treasonous in my opinion
The UN does not hold jurisdiction over the US congress, but lets say they did

they were wrong to start with (The UN)
There was WMDs
There was yellow cake stock-piled
2nd, they were getting kick backs with the oil for food program, and third, there was 54 other nations invaded/supported our invasion
You opinion of what is a threat and what the US congress and our president thought is not the same
stop thinking it is and that you matter other than 1 vote
and stop lying

The amount of WMD material found was never in question, it was if
answer me 1 question
If this yellow cake was just sitting around from the 80s or early 90s. Why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

I have read the snopes link
there are so many holes in there info
to start with no one watched over the yellow cake during the time the UN was kicked out
lets not forget even the AP dis agrees with this as well as this

I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here. Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all. A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons. This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe". First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him. Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby. Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report). Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it? In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program? Does it matter? After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD. In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future. How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD? (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time. From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active". The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that. But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003. Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard". Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003. It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent. Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence. And why would an effort need to be "concerted?" (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.) Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program." In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted. ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition. As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true. Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq. (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.") Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003. Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003. But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003. I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense. And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

the truth is the US army found this stock pile after the invasion and took control of it
the facts are clear
the dates and whi had control of it depends on which side of the febce you sit

Saddam had contol of this stuff until 03, if not it would have gone long before 08
Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Am missing something here?

Iran is thrilled. We removed their mortal enemy and the only country that served as a buffer.

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Saddam Hussein killed close to 1 million of his own people. If I gave you a M-16 and you went and killed 1 million people with it, is that my fault?
Is it me that would need to be punished for what you did?
Buffer? after 9-11 there will be no more need for buffers. You screw up and you will get the Saddam treatment every time every day

Depends, if the million people were bashed over the head with the M-16 you provided then no not so much, however if you also supplied the bullets that killed them then yes you would be culpable. Just like America is culpable for suppling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The amount of mis information that you libs re peat is treasonous in my opinion
The UN does not hold jurisdiction over the US congress, but lets say they did

they were wrong to start with (The UN)
There was WMDs
There was yellow cake stock-piled
2nd, they were getting kick backs with the oil for food program, and third, there was 54 other nations invaded/supported our invasion
You opinion of what is a threat and what the US congress and our president thought is not the same
stop thinking it is and that you matter other than 1 vote
and stop lying

The amount of WMD material found was never in question, it was if
answer me 1 question
If this yellow cake was just sitting around from the 80s or early 90s. Why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

I have read the snopes link
there are so many holes in there info
to start with no one watched over the yellow cake during the time the UN was kicked out
lets not forget even the AP dis agrees with this as well as this

I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here. Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all. A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons. This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe". First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him. Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby. Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report). Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it? In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program? Does it matter? After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD. In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future. How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD? (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time. From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active". The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that. But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003. Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard". Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003. It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent. Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence. And why would an effort need to be "concerted?" (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.) Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program." In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted. ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition. As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true. Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq. (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.") Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003. Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003. But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003. I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense. And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

the truth is the US army found this stock pile after the invasion and took control of it
the facts are clear
the dates and whi had control of it depends on which side of the febce you sit

Saddam had contol of this stuff until 03, if not it would have gone long before 08
Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

It’s terribly inconvenient when the truth doesn’t match your preconceptions, eh JRK?

 

[JRK]

Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.

I call that a failure of monumental proportions.

to start with those kids who gave it all over there did it because they felt is was the right thing to do. It amazes me anyone woud use that as a reaon you call this a failure
To them, it was a sacrifice they made to meake it a succes as it is

waste?
the failed job stimulus cost the same while over 130,000 people were murdered in this country during the same time
thats a waste

The number of bases we have closed in Iraq and Kuwait semse 03 numbers, well look for your self
No longer existent:

Camp Doha (closed in 2006, forces and equipment distributed among Camps Arifjan and Buehring)
Camp Navistar(closed 2007)
Camp New Jersey (closed in 2004) Combined to become part of Camp Virginia
Camp New York (closed in 2004, reactivated and deactiviated several time since.)
Camp Pennsylvania (closed in 2004)
Camp Victory (closed in 2006)
Camp Wolverine (closed in 2004)
Camp Maine (closed in 2003)
you can goggle the big one in saudi
that was closed in 03
List of United States Army installations in Kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

The soldiers' lives are not justification for the war or its results.

Whether the failed job stimulus (at least 1.4 million jobs created) has nothing to do with the loss of $$$ in Iraq: there is no equivalency.

Number of base closings in Iraq and Kuwait are no justification for the war.

JRK! There was and is and never will be justified.

 

[JRK]

The one million people thing. That number is generally quoted as the number killed when Saddam invaded Iran. And do you know who backed him in that war? Who was supporting him when he invaded Iran? So back then we weren't bothered about a million people dying. Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of war supporters to use the one million number now as a reason to invade him when we supported the guy before, during and after all those deaths?

And as for whether we found WMDs or not.

After we'd invaded and it became apparent there wasn't anything there Bush in desperation hand-picked the most gung ho weapons inspector there was, Charles Duelfer, a guy who'd staked his reputation on there being WMDs in Iraq, and sent him to Iraq to write the definitive report on exactly what WMDs there had been in Iraq. And he produced the following report. This is Bush's hand picked guy rmember, a guy who had a lot to lose if nothing was found. And here's what he found :

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty........

I can't post a link but you can find it easily with the google.

I just wrote a post about the mountain of mis information the left has amassed
okay
the 1 million number
Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
[edit]Iraq sanctions

As far as WMDS go
you liberals just do not get it

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
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Now let us visit what Hans Blix said about these weapons that do not exist on jan 27th 2003
FACTS - UN Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents.

March 9, 2004 U.S. Army troops operating at a former Iraqi air base discovered numerous Russian made missiles. They are more than 6 feet long and each carried 1.6 kilograms or about 3.5 pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead. The uranium is not pure enough nor in large enough quantity to be a nuclear warhead. U.S. bomb experts noted the R-60 warheads are similar in design and content to a so-called "dirty bomb" that could contaminate a small area with radioactive materials.Weapons of Mass Destruction Iraq

In statements and reports, Blix's inspection team reported that despite Iraq's denials, there were indications that Iraq had created weapons of mass destruction, including VX agent, a weapon that Blix described as "one of the most toxic [nerve agents] ever developed." Blix's report also contained evidence that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration regarding Iraq's weapons programs that Iraq supplied to the Security Council in December 2002. The United States and United Kingdom contended that Iraq's false declaration to the Security Council was clear and convincing evidence of Iraq's continued unwillingness to comply with United Nations resolutions and to peacefully disarm.

UN inspection reports provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs, thousand of tons of known chemical agents, empty chemical warheads (including an empty Sakr-18 chemical warhead) discovered subsequent to Iraq's declaration, and stocks of thiodiglycol (a precursor of mustard gas).

Iraq admitted to producing—in violation of international law—8,500 liters of anthrax bacteria capable of use in biological warfare. Iraq claimed that production stopped before the first Persian Gulf War and that it destroyed the anthrax. UN inspection reports stated, "Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction." In addition, UN inspectors concluded that there were strong indications that Iraq had manufactured far greater stores of anthrax.

Blix also reported that Iraq had manufactured a missile, the Samoud 2, that violated United Nations range restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 90 miles (150 kilometers). Inspectors also provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq rebuilt a missile plant that had previously been destroyed by earlier inspection teams and that it continued to illegally import chemicals used in formulating missile fuels and prohibited weapons. Blix ordered Iraq to begin destruction of the prohibited missiles by March 1, 2003, and to cease production of the missiles. Blix also insisted that Iraq begin to allow U-2 reconnaissance aircraft overflights demanded by inspectors.



Read more: Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) - Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) -

Speaking of lies or misrepresentation. If Depleted Uranium shells are WMD then we got some serious "splainin" to do.

lies?

the only people who are representing this in a way that is false is those who are on the wrong side of this event and will no admit it

Saddam was suppose to be clean
period
he was not even close
period
the amount of bad stuff that has never been found the UN claimed he had is never mentioned, Just what GWB said

which in all reality in time has been found
see you think that this stuff was suppose to be on a brand new scud missle pointed at a US military base

the agreement stated get rid of it, all of it

 

[JRK]

Iran is thrilled. We removed their mortal enemy and the only country that served as a buffer.

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Saddam Hussein killed close to 1 million of his own people. If I gave you a M-16 and you went and killed 1 million people with it, is that my fault?
Is it me that would need to be punished for what you did?
Buffer? after 9-11 there will be no more need for buffers. You screw up and you will get the Saddam treatment every time every day

Depends, if the million people were bashed over the head with the M-16 you provided then no not so much, however if you also supplied the bullets that killed them then yes you would be culpable. Just like America is culpable for suppling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.

you keep talking about events that post Kuwait, UN sanctions and the war have nothing to do with
why?
and you keep making accusations of this country that I am not sure that are true the way you protray them

this thread is about the succes the war in Iraq wass
it was questioned as far ass it being legal, that was decided in this country before we invaded
why all of tis energy to try and spin this thread into far more than it is?

 

[JRK]

why do you who have been against this war and its success feel so threatened?
Being against people killing other people is why we went to start with

Saddam was a mad man and he is gone
Iraq was a powder keg and as we found out had some bad stuff no-one had control of for one reason
to hurt people

Iraq is a budding republic and damn if that is being tried to be shown as a failure
People face it
we won
the world is a better place
were leaving
and those sacrificed those kids made were for the right reasons

what more else is there to say?
deal with it, pray about it and ask yourself why are you still so against an event that is over, we won

 

[NoNukes]

Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.

I call that a failure of monumental proportions.

to start with those kids who gave it all over there did it because they felt is was the right thing to do. It amazes me anyone woud use that as a reaon you call this a failure
To them, it was a sacrifice they made to meake it a succes as it is

waste?
the failed job stimulus cost the same while over 130,000 people were murdered in this country during the same time
thats a waste

The number of bases we have closed in Iraq and Kuwait semse 03 numbers, well look for your self
No longer existent:

Camp Doha (closed in 2006, forces and equipment distributed among Camps Arifjan and Buehring)
Camp Navistar(closed 2007)
Camp New Jersey (closed in 2004) Combined to become part of Camp Virginia
Camp New York (closed in 2004, reactivated and deactiviated several time since.)
Camp Pennsylvania (closed in 2004)
Camp Victory (closed in 2006)
Camp Wolverine (closed in 2004)
Camp Maine (closed in 2003)
you can goggle the big one in saudi
that was closed in 03
List of United States Army installations in Kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They did not necessarily feel this way, just as many soldiers did not feel that way in the Vietnam War. When you are in the service and get sent to fight a stupid war by an asshole like Bush, you are stuck, you do not particularly like it.

 

[JRK]

Four thousand dead soldiers, thousands more maimed for life, a trillion dollars down the drain, and nothing gained for us here at home.

I call that a failure of monumental proportions.

to start with those kids who gave it all over there did it because they felt is was the right thing to do. It amazes me anyone woud use that as a reaon you call this a failure
To them, it was a sacrifice they made to meake it a succes as it is

waste?
the failed job stimulus cost the same while over 130,000 people were murdered in this country during the same time
thats a waste

The number of bases we have closed in Iraq and Kuwait semse 03 numbers, well look for your self
No longer existent:

Camp Doha (closed in 2006, forces and equipment distributed among Camps Arifjan and Buehring)
Camp Navistar(closed 2007)
Camp New Jersey (closed in 2004) Combined to become part of Camp Virginia
Camp New York (closed in 2004, reactivated and deactiviated several time since.)
Camp Pennsylvania (closed in 2004)
Camp Victory (closed in 2006)
Camp Wolverine (closed in 2004)
Camp Maine (closed in 2003)
you can goggle the big one in saudi
that was closed in 03
List of United States Army installations in Kuwait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They did not necessarily feel this way, just as many soldiers did not feel that way in the Vietnam War. When you are in the service and get sent to fight a stupid war by an asshole like Bush, you are stuck, you do not particularly like it.

wat does nam have to do with Iraq?
2 totally different events

 

[Kevinthedog]

are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
I know the truth here...

 

[BlindBoo]

Saddam Hussein killed close to 1 million of his own people. If I gave you a M-16 and you went and killed 1 million people with it, is that my fault?
Is it me that would need to be punished for what you did?
Buffer? after 9-11 there will be no more need for buffers. You screw up and you will get the Saddam treatment every time every day

Depends, if the million people were bashed over the head with the M-16 you provided then no not so much, however if you also supplied the bullets that killed them then yes you would be culpable. Just like America is culpable for suppling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.

you keep talking about events that post Kuwait, UN sanctions and the war have nothing to do with
why?
and you keep making accusations of this country that I am not sure that are true the way you protray them

this thread is about the succes the war in Iraq wass
it was questioned as far ass it being legal, that was decided in this country before we invaded
why all of tis energy to try and spin this thread into far more than it is?

I answered your question about the M-16 and killing people. Do you not understand the answer, or do you question wether or not the Raygun administration sold weapons and support to Iraq during the 80's or that the same administration made missile deals with Iran during the same war?

 

[Kevinthedog]

america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.

 

[JRK]

are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
I know the truth here...

guilty?
stupid?
you hav e no understanding of what any of this has been abput
if you think this is funny, you are a new addition to the ignore list because you childish behavior is not funny about a very serious as well a very successfulundertaking that over 4000 Americans gave there lives for

 

[JRK]

Depends, if the million people were bashed over the head with the M-16 you provided then no not so much, however if you also supplied the bullets that killed them then yes you would be culpable. Just like America is culpable for suppling weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war.

you keep talking about events that post Kuwait, UN sanctions and the war have nothing to do with
why?
and you keep making accusations of this country that I am not sure that are true the way you protray them

this thread is about the succes the war in Iraq wass
it was questioned as far ass it being legal, that was decided in this country before we invaded
why all of tis energy to try and spin this thread into far more than it is?

I answered your question about the M-16 and killing people. Do you not understand the answer, or do you question wether or not the Raygun administration sold weapons and support to Iraq during the 80's or that the same administration made missile deals with Iran during the same war?

what answer? that alleged events that allegedly involved RR was the reason Saddam killed 1 million people?
It is unclear to me how you could claim GWB or RR was evil and was resp. for killing any-one and you ignore the real murderer all this time
How did you get there?

 

[Kevinthedog]

are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
I know the truth here...

guilty?
stupid?
you hav e no understanding of what any of this has been abput
if you think this is funny, you are a new addition to the ignore list because you childish behavior is not funny about a very serious as well a very successfulundertaking that over 4000 Americans gave there lives for

You mistake my ironic humor at how the war turned out, and how repubs and neocons are running away form the war they loved at one time as laughing at the devastations of the results of the war? Really? you should know better than that. I am not so shallow a human. and I well aware of the spineless democrats culpability in this war going on, too...But this war is George Bush's war he LED us into! he WAS THE PRESIDENT! He was gung ho about the war. It wouldnt of happened if a democrat was the president and you know it!

Starting an uneccessary war is one of the worst things a LEADER can do.

 

[Kevinthedog]

Please get the US out of the middle east...completely......it's insane over there and we do not belong there, nor are we the worlds policemen.

 

[JRK]

america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.

Kevin GWB made sure we were going to get out of Iraq in 2008
we did what we said we would do and the 3% of the oil Iraq is providing for the world is flowing

 

[Kevinthedog]

america just needs to get the heck out of the middle east...how ironic they have all this.....oil. and sad.

Kevin GWB made sure we were going to get out of Iraq in 2008
we did what we said we would do and the 3% of the oil Iraq is providing for the world is flowing

huh? When did we get out of iraq? we're still there???

 

[JRK]

are you repub/neo cons/tea partiers/conservatives or whatever you want to name yourselves, still feeling mighty guilty about this stupid war you guys led us into, and still trying to justify it? ha ha ha...
I know the truth here...

guilty?
stupid?
you hav e no understanding of what any of this has been abput
if you think this is funny, you are a new addition to the ignore list because you childish behavior is not funny about a very serious as well a very successfulundertaking that over 4000 Americans gave there lives for

You mistake my ironic humor at how the war turned out, and how repubs and neocons are running away form the war they loved at one time as laughing at the devastations of the results of the war? Really? you should know better than that. I am not so shallow a human. and I well aware of the spineless democrats culpability in this war going on, too...But this war is George Bush's war he LED us into! he WAS THE PRESIDENT! He was gung ho about the war. It wouldnt of happened if a democrat was the president and you know it!

Starting an uneccessary war is one of the worst things a LEADER can do.

Kevin the 4000 kids who gave there lives would not have been there is they felt it was a waste
look you dis agreeing with the war in Iraq is your right
but what amazes me is the millions who thought different, signed up and went and got the job done
we are different

what amazes me is no-one who is against that war blames Saddam. He had years to prevent it and 18 months after 9-11
GWB never hid what was coming, he could have stopped it