People who hate America are claiming the war to liberate Iraq was really about oil

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Oh oh. Jhhnn has uncovered our secret organization of professional operatives who exist solely to follow his every move and discredit his exposure of the Bush admin malfeasance on an obscure political forum on the Internet. Guess we'll have to close up shop now.

btw, we've noticed the tinfoil covering your windows has become loose in places.

I suppose I wasn't entirely clear- I meant that I think you are a highly trained professional bullshit artist in real life, not that you're being paid to post, at all.

Your reply to Garfield and the rather laborious explanation of how invading Iraq was done to draw in and confront radical islamic fundamentalists doesn't jibe well with the other stuff you've offered wrt Iraqi democracy and the humanitarian need to oust Hussein. On the one hand, you say we used Iraqis as cannon fodder, and on the other we're there to help them out, honest...
 

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,914
3,532
136
i dont hate america in the slightest but come on, first thought was well der. anyone remember the WMD dossier?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I suppose I wasn't entirely clear- I meant that I think you are a highly trained professional bullshit artist in real life, not that you're being paid to post, at all.

Your reply to Garfield and the rather laborious explanation of how invading Iraq was done to draw in and confront radical islamic fundamentalists doesn't jibe well with the other stuff you've offered wrt Iraqi democracy and the humanitarian need to oust Hussein. On the one hand, you say we used Iraqis as cannon fodder, and on the other we're there to help them out, honest...
No Jhhnn. You claim I am saying we used Iraqis as cannon fodder. I am not saying that at all. Like Garfield, you like to put words in my mouth because you can't actually seem to counter my points and also still seem to be seriously chafing that the US didn't crash and burn in Iraq as you and your partisan ilk so fervently hoped would happen all along.

Apparently it also continues to chafe your ass that my predictions about Iraq turned out to be correct while you and numerous others called me crazy while I was making those claims from '04 right up to this very day. All I can say is that lack of vision is not my problem, it's yours.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No Jhhnn. You claim I am saying we used Iraqis as cannon fodder. I am not saying that at all. Like Garfield, you like to put words in my mouth because you can't actually seem to counter my points and also still seem to be seriously chafing that the US didn't crash and burn in Iraq as you and your partisan ilk so fervently hoped would happen all along.

Apparently it also continues to chafe your ass that my predictions about Iraq turned out to be correct while you and numerous others called me crazy while I was making those claims from '04 right up to this very day. All I can say is that lack of vision is not my problem, it's yours.

Heh. your own words betray you-

We went into Iraq to fight militant Islamic fundamentalism because Iraq was the only country we could feasibly go into with a figleaf of an excuse for invading in the first place. And understand this. "Fighting" has a number of meanings, both direct and indirect, military and non-military.

Once we invaded Iraq we didn't have to go into a bunch of other ME countries to hunt down the militants. They came to us in Iraq. We could directly confront them. We could fight them directly with military force.

The Islamic militants we "drew in" engaged in horrendous acts of terrorism against Iraqis, something we knew would happen according to your scenario. Bombings of mosques and markets, sectarian massacres and executions, but the Iraqis weren't intended to be our cannon fodder, at all, right? What would be the point of fighting them "over there" rather than "over here" if the intent wasn't to make Iraqis rather than Americans the victims of collateral damage?

Nice to see that you've finally conceded that the proferred reasons for invasion were a "fig leaf", even though you refuse to recognize what the fig leaf was intended to cover...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Heh. your own words betray you-
Only in your own mind, Jhhnn.

The Islamic militants we "drew in" engaged in horrendous acts of terrorism against Iraqis, something we knew would happen according to your scenario. Bombings of mosques and markets, sectarian massacres and executions, but the Iraqis weren't intended to be our cannon fodder, at all, right? What would be the point of fighting them "over there" rather than "over here" if the intent wasn't to make Iraqis rather than Americans the victims of collateral damage?

Nice to see that you've finally conceded that the proferred reasons for invasion were a "fig leaf", even though you refuse to recognize what the fig leaf was intended to cover...
Really? We knew this would happen? Says who? The radical foreign nationals were supposedly there to fight the invading infidels and their own religion prohibited them from attacking those of their own faith.

The fact of the matter is that those same foreign nationals made their biggest tactical error by targeting Iraqis. That's what actually turned things around. It demonstrated that those same fundie twits weren't acting out of religious ferver but purely out of lust for power. Islamic ideals didn't drive them, the desire for control did. It's unfortunate that many Iraqis had to die in order to learn that lesson but it was a lesson learned by far more in the ME than the Iraqis. That's also why the lefty chant of "The US is growing the ranks of Al Qaeda" was complete and utter bullshit. They marginalized themselves through their brutal actions. If not, where is the massive membership today that the US invasion allegedly prompted?

That's right. It was more FUD from the left and nothing more than that.

Your lame attempt to villify me as some uncaring schmuck who was willing to see Iraqis sacrificed and exposed to brutality for the greater good of the US is bullshit as well. People like you would rather have turned your backs, left Saddam to his own devices, and allowed him to continue to persecute, torture, and kill Shia and anyone who dared dissent against his reign of terror for years to come; and his sons would have promulgated that process and may even have taken it to a higher level. Damn, that kind of accusatory crap cuts both ways, doesn't it Jhhnn?

While there was surely some short-term pain, in the long-term Iraqis are far better off than they were though you will likely try to do your best to deny that with more BS to follow.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
People like you would rather have turned your backs, left Saddam to his own devices, and allowed him to continue to persecute, torture, and kill Shia and anyone who dared dissent against his reign of terror for years to come; and his sons would have promulgated that process and may even have taken it to a higher level.

Well considering the cost and loss of American lives, yeah. I'm betting a lot of the Right wouldn't have supported the invasion either if they knew the reasons given for it were bullshit and the eventual outcome.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Only in your own mind, Jhhnn.


Really? We knew this would happen? Says who? The radical foreign nationals were supposedly there to fight the invading infidels and their own religion prohibited them from attacking those of their own faith.

How could the Neocons have not known that? Civil authority was wiped out by decree, and replaced with troops who stayed in their bases. Violent factions and foreigners were left to do what they wanted, and the Shia Sunni rift was exploited in a two way exercise of the Salvador option- arm both sides, wring your hands in mock horror as they tear into each other. Sunni radicals had no compunctions about bombing Shia mosques and marketplaces, and the opposite was obviously true as well.

The fact of the matter is that those same foreign nationals made their biggest tactical error by targeting Iraqis. That's what actually turned things around. It demonstrated that those same fundie twits weren't acting out of religious ferver but purely out of lust for power. Islamic ideals didn't drive them, the desire for control did. It's unfortunate that many Iraqis had to die in order to learn that lesson but it was a lesson learned by far more in the ME than the Iraqis. That's also why the lefty chant of "The US is growing the ranks of Al Qaeda" was complete and utter bullshit. They marginalized themselves through their brutal actions. If not, where is the massive membership today that the US invasion allegedly prompted?

That's right. It was more FUD from the left and nothing more than that.

I haven't made that claim, so you're engaging in the usual false attribution.

Your lame attempt to villify me as some uncaring schmuck who was willing to see Iraqis sacrificed and exposed to brutality for the greater good of the US is bullshit as well. People like you would rather have turned your backs, left Saddam to his own devices, and allowed him to continue to persecute, torture, and kill Shia and anyone who dared dissent against his reign of terror for years to come; and his sons would have promulgated that process and may even have taken it to a higher level. Damn, that kind of accusatory crap cuts both ways, doesn't it Jhhnn?

While there was surely some short-term pain, in the long-term Iraqis are far better off than they were though you will likely try to do your best to deny that with more BS to follow.

Short term pain? Like 100,000 dead by conservative estimate, along with countless others wounded and maimed? 2M refugees who've fled the country and another 2.5M who are displaced in Iraq?

That's almost 20% of the population.

Not to mention the dismal state of Iraqi infrastructure after 12 years of sanctions and a strategic bombing campaign designed to knock out what was left, combined with continuing unrest that prevents recovery.

But they're Free! as if that had anything to do with the invasion, or with the upcoming withdrawal, either. I really don't know how things will turn out for Iraqis, but if what we've done is some kind of "help", I doubt they see it that way.

The Bushistas miscalculated terribly when they invaded Iraq, and the fact that we'll leave mostly empty-handed is testimony to that. Well, other than the debt run up to accomplish that, along with the death and destruction on both sides, including lots of maimed American veterans who'll hopefully get the care they deserve for having done their duty.

Apparently it also continues to chafe your ass that my predictions about Iraq turned out to be correct while you and numerous others called me crazy while I was making those claims from '04 right up to this very day. All I can say is that lack of vision is not my problem, it's yours.

Your predictions mean nothing, since the story is still unfolding- we'll see what happens when the last American troops leave, and the relationship between the Iraqis and the Iranians continues to blossom.

Lack of vision? Please. The law of unintended consequences is something that the Neocons never even considered, and what we're confronted with today and for decades to come.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
TLC still trying to justify his BS, huh? LOL

Glad to see Jhnn showed TLc's duplicity. What a stand up guy TLC is, willing to sacrifice 100,000 dead (as long as they aren't' his family presumably) so he can feel safe in bed.

Good thing he got rid of all those "Islamic fundamentalists" in Saddam's government, LOL. Keep beating the dead horse TLC, maybe it will magically come back to life!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
How could the Neocons have not known that? Civil authority was wiped out by decree, and replaced with troops who stayed in their bases. Violent factions and foreigners were left to do what they wanted, and the Shia Sunni rift was exploited in a two way exercise of the Salvador option- arm both sides, wring your hands in mock horror as they tear into each other. Sunni radicals had no compunctions about bombing Shia mosques and marketplaces, and the opposite was obviously true as well.
Yeah. Right. The US was nowhere to be found immediately after the invasion. Engaging in more revisionism, Jhhnn?

You sidestepped pretty much everything I said as well but that's to be expected since you don't appear to actually have an answer regarding why allegedly devout Muslims were attacking and blatantly murdering other Muslims all in the name of Islam.

As far as the Shia/Sunni rift, that was bound to play out eventually because payback is part of ME culture. Unfortunately, there was no possible way to possibly bring Iraq to a semblence of normalcy without that happening. If it hadn't happened now it would have happened eventually and possibly with far bloodier consequences.

I haven't made that claim, so you're engaging in the usual false attribution.
I didn't say you made the claim in the first place so it's simply a false claim on your part. I was merely expounding on my own explanation. Maybe you shouldn't imagine that only you are driving this discussion, Jhhnn?

Short term pain? Like 100,000 dead by conservative estimate, along with countless others wounded and maimed? 2M refugees who've fled the country and another 2.5M who are displaced in Iraq?

That's almost 20% of the population.

Not to mention the dismal state of Iraqi infrastructure after 12 years of sanctions and a strategic bombing campaign designed to knock out what was left, combined with continuing unrest that prevents recovery.

But they're Free! as if that had anything to do with the invasion, or with the upcoming withdrawal, either. I really don't know how things will turn out for Iraqis, but if what we've done is some kind of "help", I doubt they see it that way.

The Bushistas miscalculated terribly when they invaded Iraq, and the fact that we'll leave mostly empty-handed is testimony to that. Well, other than the debt run up to accomplish that, along with the death and destruction on both sides, including lots of maimed American veterans who'll hopefully get the care they deserve for having done their duty.
And how many Iraqis allegedly died due to the sanctions? 500K. How many did Saddam continue to torture and murder? But I guess as long as we could pretend we weren't directly involved that's a kind of absolution, eh?

Your predictions mean nothing, since the story is still unfolding- we'll see what happens when the last American troops leave, and the relationship between the Iraqis and the Iranians continues to blossom.

Lack of vision? Please. The law of unintended consequences is something that the Neocons never even considered, and what we're confronted with today and for decades to come.
lol. Now you sound like you're channeling Lemon Law. Like him, you can continue to pretend you're not secretly wishing for a complete implosion in Iraq while wishing the Iraqis all the best at the same time though.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
TLC still trying to justify his BS, huh? LOL

Glad to see Jhnn showed TLc's duplicity. What a stand up guy TLC is, willing to sacrifice 100,000 dead (as long as they aren't' his family presumably) so he can feel safe in bed.

Good thing he got rid of all those "Islamic fundamentalists" in Saddam's government, LOL. Keep beating the dead horse TLC, maybe it will magically come back to life!
Need a tissue to wipe that brown stuff of Jhhnn's off of your nose? Since you can't seem to actually formulate a logical, factual argument yourself I guess the best you can do is to try and ride another's coattails.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yeah. Right. The US was nowhere to be found immediately after the invasion. Engaging in more revisionism, Jhhnn?

They sure as hell weren't acting as a police force after the govt was disbanded. They went out on patrols, returned to base until the Surge was implemented, remember?

You sidestepped pretty much everything I said as well but that's to be expected since you don't appear to actually have an answer regarding why allegedly devout Muslims were attacking and blatantly murdering other Muslims all in the name of Islam.

As far as the Shia/Sunni rift, that was bound to play out eventually because payback is part of ME culture. Unfortunately, there was no possible way to possibly bring Iraq to a semblence of normalcy without that happening. If it hadn't happened now it would have happened eventually and possibly with far bloodier consequences.

I don't need to answer a spurious red herring question- Islamic fundamentalists have a long history of killing innocents of any faith- it's called terrorism, remember? And it didn't start in Iraq.

Nice apologism wrt the Salvador option, as well. On the one hand, you offer that the obvious wasn't obvious to your heroes, then make claims about "eventualities" that you can't possibly have predicted, ie Sunni vs Shia bloodshed. How do you know it was eventual? After all, they're all muslims, and therefore shouldn't kill each other according to your own pronouncements. But they did.

We knew that would happen, but we didn't know that foreigne terrorists would do the same? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in the same paragraph, a real feat.


I didn't say you made the claim in the first place so it's simply a false claim on your part. I was merely expounding on my own explanation. Maybe you shouldn't imagine that only you are driving this discussion, Jhhnn?

Then why quote me, use that as a response?

And how many Iraqis allegedly died due to the sanctions? 500K. How many did Saddam continue to torture and murder? But I guess as long as we could pretend we weren't directly involved that's a kind of absolution, eh?

Have I offered that I supported the sanctions? No? Then why are you implying that I did?

lol. Now you sound like you're channeling Lemon Law. Like him, you can continue to pretend you're not secretly wishing for a complete implosion in Iraq while wishing the Iraqis all the best at the same time though.

Nice bit of innuendo and false attribution- you're good, but not that good- any rational person reading this exchange knows it won't pass the sniff test. It's a stinker, as is the rest of what you've offered, other than the figleaf admission.

The Bush Admin employed excuses to invade Iraq, and you've repeated every one of them, other than WMD's, as if they were honest reasons. There were no honest reasons, and there was no realistic analysis of how to get what they really wanted or possible negative outcomes, either. The situation never really was under control, nor is it today, despite all the crowing about "success". We'll be leaving shortly under that cover, much as we left Vietnam under the banner of Peace with honor. After that, I have no idea of what will happen, except to say that Iraqis are making lots of money dealing with the Iranians, and that'll probably continue to grow. The outer of the Baathists created a power vacuum, and the Iraqi govt seems entirely willing to cooperate with Iran in filling it. Middle Eastern politics are tricky, remember? Too bad that the Neocons never even considered the idea.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
They sure as hell weren't acting as a police force after the govt was disbanded. They went out on patrols, returned to base until the Surge was implemented, remember?
And?

Apparently you have completely unrealistic expectations of what war entails? Do you actually believe that the role of the US military immediately after the invasion was to step into a civilian law enforcement role?

It's precisely that kind of unrealistic expectations that make the lefties look like jokes.

I don't need to answer a spurious red herring question- Islamic fundamentalists have a long history of killing innocents of any faith- it's called terrorism, remember? And it didn't start in Iraq.
lol again. Islamic fundamenalists supposedly follow the transcripts of their faith which prohibits them from killing their own. I guess you feel free to disregard that when it's not convenient to your argument though?

Nice apologism wrt the Salvador option, as well. On the one hand, you offer that the obvious wasn't obvious to your heroes, then make claims about "eventualities" that you can't possibly have predicted, ie Sunni vs Shia bloodshed. How do you know it was eventual? After all, they're all muslims, and therefore shouldn't kill each other according to your own pronouncements. But they did.

We knew that would happen, but we didn't know that foreigne terrorists would do the same? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in the same paragraph, a real feat.
You already spoke as if it was an known result, Jhhnn. Now you try to deny it as if it wasn't?

Wow.

Then why quote me, use that as a response?
To show there were two sides to the coin. You wanted to paint me as uncaring about Iraqis. I pointed out that a case of being uncaring could be made either way. iow, your point backfired.

Have I offered that I supported the sanctions? No? Then why are you implying that I did?
If you didn't support the war then sanctions were the result that was left. You may not have supported them directly but lack of inaction would have left no other choice in the matter. There was no gray area here. It was a binary result, not a choice, and it ultimately had nothing to do with YOU personally desired.

Nice bit of innuendo and false attribution- you're good, but not that good- any rational person reading this exchange knows it won't pass the sniff test. It's a stinker, as is the rest of what you've offered, other than the figleaf admission.

The Bush Admin employed excuses to invade Iraq, and you've repeated every one of them, other than WMD's, as if they were honest reasons. There were no honest reasons, and there was no realistic analysis of how to get what they really wanted or possible negative outcomes, either. The situation never really was under control, nor is it today, despite all the crowing about "success". We'll be leaving shortly under that cover, much as we left Vietnam under the banner of Peace with honor. After that, I have no idea of what will happen, except to say that Iraqis are making lots of money dealing with the Iranians, and that'll probably continue to grow. The outer of the Baathists created a power vacuum, and the Iraqi govt seems entirely willing to cooperate with Iran in filling it. Middle Eastern politics are tricky, remember? Too bad that the Neocons never even considered the idea.
We will see what happens, Jhhnn. So far the anti-war crowd have had a large number of mighty swings and misses regarding their predictions on Iraq. Presently that doesn't appear to be changing in any drastic or meaningful way despite the desire of folks like you to see Iraq crash and burn.

And that's another issue. The antiwar crowd would happily see Iraq segue into chaos and destruction purely to have their predictions come true. They would love to see a country of millions tank simply so they could say "I told you so." So please spare me any of your bullshit about caring when you would gladly sacrifice an entire country to have your partisan fantasies fullfilled.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
And?

Apparently you have completely unrealistic expectations of what war entails? Do you actually believe that the role of the US military immediately after the invasion was to step into a civilian law enforcement role?

It's precisely that kind of unrealistic expectations that make the lefties look like jokes.

Shinseki said he'd need 300-400K troops to pacify Iraq, and was basically sacked for his honesty. This was before the invasion even took place. I don't have unrealistic expectations of what war entails- the Neocons apparently had unrealistic expectations of what pacification entailed, and history has born that out.


lol again. Islamic fundamenalists supposedly follow the transcripts of their faith which prohibits them from killing their own. I guess you feel free to disregard that when it's not convenient to your argument though?

They discarded your false attribution, not me, long before you typed out that bit of nonsense the first time.

You already spoke as if it was an known result, Jhhnn. Now you try to deny it as if it wasn't?

Wow.

It was you who claimed it was a known result, even as you claimed that Muslims weren't supposed to be killing each other, that foreign Sunni wouldn't ally themselves with native Sunnis to kill Shia, remember?


To show there were two sides to the coin. You wanted to paint me as uncaring about Iraqis. I pointed out that a case of being uncaring could be made either way. iow, your point backfired.

Uncaring? The actions of the Bush Admin were way beyond that. Iraqis were exploited to become the dead, maimed and impoverished victims of their Crusade against radical Islam. War entails a lot of collateral damage under realistic expectations, particularly when deliberately exposing a captive population to it. The Bushistas beat down the ant-radical Iraqi govt, threw open the borders, invited radicals to come on in and make their day. This is by your own admission.

If you didn't support the war then sanctions were the result that was left. You may not have supported them directly but lack of inaction would have left no other choice in the matter. There was no gray area here. It was a binary result, not a choice, and it ultimately had nothing to do with YOU personally desired.

Sanctions had been maintained on the basis that the Baathists hadn't proven a negative, that they hadn't destroyed their chemical weapons & long range rockets. The reintroduced inspectors were on the verge of proving that they had destroyed such weapons until ordered to withdraw by Bush. Sanctions would have been untenable, and the Bushistas certainly didn't want that. They wanted invasion, and nothing was getting in their way.

We will see what happens, Jhhnn. So far the anti-war crowd have had a large number of mighty swings and misses regarding their predictions on Iraq. Presently that doesn't appear to be changing in any drastic or meaningful way despite the desire of folks like you to see Iraq crash and burn.

And that's another issue. The antiwar crowd would happily see Iraq segue into chaos and destruction purely to have their predictions come true. They would love to see a country of millions tank simply so they could say "I told you so." So please spare me any of your bullshit about caring when you would gladly sacrifice an entire country to have your partisan fantasies fullfilled.

Engage in innuendo, false attributions, & slander, then just keep repeating it as if it were true, right? Of course. That's how we ended up in Iraq in the first place. If Iraq falls to pieces, it'll be because of arrogant Neocon meddling, not because of anything done by their domestic political opponents.
 

Gintaras

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2000
1,892
1
71
You used a British news source. Why do you hate America?

Question itself isn't intelligent as a person asking that...
America? South America? North America? Any particular country of either America?
Even, if it gets narrowed down to United States of America, you can not hate(I don't even like that word - "hate") name of country or anything what this country is about - geography(location), history, people, economics...etc...
You have to point what you don't like instead of generalize everything down to county's name.

A lot of people don't like US foreign policies, and it's pretty normal since US in foreign policies is similar to foreign policies of Germany in 1933-1941....

Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Egypt and rest of "uprising" of northern Africa countries are not about oil only...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Shinseki said he'd need 300-400K troops to pacify Iraq, and was basically sacked for his honesty. This was before the invasion even took place. I don't have unrealistic expectations of what war entails- the Neocons apparently had unrealistic expectations of what pacification entailed, and history has born that out.
The military's role is to fight a war. That's exactly what they did and they did that very well, very quickly, and very efficiently.

Why not be honest instead of reguritating tired old talking points about "neocons." 600- 800K US soldiers could not have prevented the Iraqis from acting on grudges that had been built over decades. Those grudges had to be resolved in order for Iraq to eventually become functional again.

They discarded your false attribution, not me, long before you typed out that bit of nonsense the first time.
So proclaims Jhhnn, one of the greatest unrecognized military strategists posting on an internet tech forum of all time

It was you who claimed it was a known result, even as you claimed that Muslims weren't supposed to be killing each other, that foreign Sunni wouldn't ally themselves with native Sunnis to kill Shia, remember?
It's not me that claims Muslims weren't supposed to kill each other. It is proscribed by Islam.

Uncaring? The actions of the Bush Admin were way beyond that. Iraqis were exploited to become the dead, maimed and impoverished victims of their Crusade against radical Islam. War entails a lot of collateral damage under realistic expectations, particularly when deliberately exposing a captive population to it. The Bushistas beat down the ant-radical Iraqi govt, threw open the borders, invited radicals to come on in and make their day. This is by your own admission.
I simply observed that the militant fundies came. I never said they were invited. Can you show me where Bush or anyone else in office at the time sent out invites?

Sanctions had been maintained on the basis that the Baathists hadn't proven a negative, that they hadn't destroyed their chemical weapons & long range rockets. The reintroduced inspectors were on the verge of proving that they had destroyed such weapons until ordered to withdraw by Bush. Sanctions would have been untenable, and the Bushistas certainly didn't want that. They wanted invasion, and nothing was getting in their way.
Sanctions based on a negative certainly hadn't been maintained by the Bush admin. Nor were the reintroduced inspectors on the verge of anything as Saddam failed to properly comply with the UN resolutions right to the very end.

Engage in innuendo, false attributions, & slander, then just keep repeating it as if it were true, right? Of course. That's how we ended up in Iraq in the first place. If Iraq falls to pieces, it'll be because of arrogant Neocon meddling, not because of anything done by their domestic political opponents.
Poor Jhhnn. He loves to engage in those very things himeslf but gets all bent out of shape when they are turned around on him. Sniff my finger. All it smells like is the bs you dish out. You just refuse to recognize that fact.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I simply observed that the militant fundies came. I never said they were invited. Can you show me where Bush or anyone else in office at the time sent out invites?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKdbZWNqF00

Sanctions based on a negative certainly hadn't been maintained by the Bush admin. Nor were the reintroduced inspectors on the verge of anything as Saddam failed to properly comply with the UN resolutions right to the very end.

What does "failed to properly comply" mean, anyway? Hans Blix claimed they were complying, prior to being ordered out, and We never did find those mythical WMD's, either.

Poor Jhhnn. He loves to engage in those very things himself but gets all bent out of shape when they are turned around on him. Sniff my finger. All it smells like is the bs you dish out. You just refuse to recognize that fact.[/QUOTE]

More false attribution. If you claim that you can read some sort of a wish for chaos in Iraq in my remarks, you're either delusional or a liar.

I'll pick the latter, as it's clear you've been trained in the art of propaganda.