Iraq 10 years after

[Upsmule]

How fast was Austrailia and Ploand out of there ? As soon as they noticed the war was a hoax , - within a month or 2 !
Blair already admitted it was his biggest mistake to take part of that war.

Oh well golly gee willikers let's chalk it up to stupid cowboy presidents from Texas - say whoopsie our bad and walk away, and wonder why 10 years later the world and Iraqi's would be better of if the butcher of Bagdad was still funding radical west haters. Screw the irreplaceable lives wasted it's the money that matters after all.

 

[728ups]

Oh well golly gee willikers let's chalk it up to stupid cowboy presidents from Texas - say whoopsie our bad and walk away, and wonder why 10 years later the world and Iraqi's would be better of if the butcher of Bagdad was still funding radical west haters. Screw the irreplaceable lives wasted it's the money that matters after all.

 

[Upsmule]

So typical of DC. Bush started an unjust war....congressional armchair quarterbacks ok'd it then mismanaged it. And Barry O is lauded as a hero for pulling out prematurely. Pun intended.

 

[728ups]

 

[klein]

Oh well golly gee willikers let's chalk it up to stupid cowboy presidents from Texas - say whoopsie our bad and walk away, and wonder why 10 years later the world and Iraqi's would be better of if the butcher of Bagdad was still funding radical west haters. Screw the irreplaceable lives wasted it's the money that matters after all.

See, that's why governments, esspecially yours, should ask citizens for money upfront, and every month thereafter, if they are willing to spend up to $50.000 each for that cause.

 

[Upsmule]

Let's rejoice that the same batch of numb nuts will control our healthcare.

 

[klein]

Let's rejoice that the same batch of numb nuts will control our healthcare.

Yeah, healthcare should have waited until republicans put it in place. Or maybe Bush should have instead of spending trillions on 2 wars ?
Anyways, paying twice the amount on healthcare than any other industrialized country is goofy, don't you think , and unaffordable !??

 

[Bad Gas!]

We had no reason to invade Iraq. We are responsible for the deaths of far more Iraqi citizens than would have died under Hussein's regime. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and posed no threat to the United States.

The war was approved by 85 per cent of congress..No hands are clean!

 

[klein]

The war was approved by 85 per cent of congress..No hands are clean!

But it was because of lies. I even fell for it and was disapointed that Canada (as you best pal and neighbour), didn't help you folks out.
But, there was that evidence problem that Bush couldn't provide to our Country up north.

Lesson learned forsure.

 

[728ups]

The war was approved by 85 per cent of congress..No hands are clean!

That's easy to say with 10 years hindsight.
Congress and the Nation were fed lies over WMD's,alleged ties to 9/11 and AL queada and Terrorism. I seem to remember any elected official who wasnt behind the war was branded Unpatriotic, Max Cleland comes to mind. He is a Triple Amputee from the Viet Nam war and and Democrat from Georgia who faced the label of being unpatriotic from Republicans who never heard a shot fired in anger!!

 

[purplesky]

The war was approved by 85 per cent of congress..No hands are clean!

Bush(Cheney) owns Iraq. Bush as President and the commander in chief of the USA made the FINAL call to go into Iraq. History will not be kind to Bush.

There is a reason why so many other countries wanted nothing to do with Iraq. IT WAS ALL BASED ON A MADE UP LIE THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911.

 

[trickpony1]

It's my understanding the Kurds wanted to revolt and overthrow Sadam. The Kurds were promised aid from us that they didn't get.

Sadam used WMD in the form of poison gas on the Kurds in retaliation for the failed coup.

Sadam was killing his own people with WMD's. Apparently the POTUS thought that was good enough reason to "invade" (not the correct term) but "liberate" Iraq from Sadam.

That's just my understanding.

 

[728ups]

It's my understanding the Kurds wanted to revolt and overthrow Sadam. The Kurds were promised aid from us that they didn't get.

Sadam used WMD in the form of poison gas on the Kurds in retaliation for the failed coup.

Sadam was killing his own people with WMD's. Apparently the POTUS thought that was good enough reason to "invade" (not the correct term) but "liberate" Iraq from Sadam.

That's just my understanding.

I never understood why a n even that occurred in 1988 ( when Saddam was our ally,no less) was the spark that ignited the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld certainly had no problems with Iraq using gas against the Iranians

 

[Babagounj]

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

 

[BrownArmy]

Problematic, isn't it?

 

[Babagounj]

I expect some posters to be eating crow soon .

 

[The Other Side]

I expect some posters to be eating crow soon .

About what??

TOS.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I expect some posters to be eating crow soon .

Here's your crow.

From your posted article.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

 

[av8torntn]

I expect some posters to be eating crow soon .

You clearly give them more credit than they deserve. Back in 2006 I posted that it wasn't uncommon to find chemical weapons in Iraq and got attacked relentlessly by the same ones that will come here like troll just did. It's not like this was any type of secret. This information has been around for some time.

 

[Babagounj]

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.
“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”