• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chilcot Report Damns USA Invasion of Iraq

*shrug* Let me reword this, then....

Brits publish report condemning something that's been going on forever and continues to happen. They also try to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own actions and involvement in the matter.
showing you to be not at all conversant with the report.
Final conclusion = *yawn*
Yes, that is tiring.
 
That doesn't even remotely support your claim. When I asked you, "How did they miss the best chance?", responding with "That the Iraqis had a chance to create a more efficient society was certainly an achievement that they let slip, is right obvious." isn't a rational or relevant answer.

Thanks for trying.

Well, the Iraqis had the possibility of reordering in such a way as to create a free society. Much like Austria or Japan after the war. They didn't. Are you blind?
 
Well, the Iraqis had the possibility of reordering in such a way as to create a free society. Much like Austria or Japan after the war. They didn't. Are you blind?

They did? LOL! Are you blind? Where/when/how, exactly? Iraq was nothing, whatsoever, like Austria or Japan after the war.

I'm not asking for generalizations, I'm asking for specifics.

If you cannot provide them, simply either say so or move on.
 
Nonsense. The decision was made before "negotiations" took place. Blair committed, perhaps in hope of cooling things down, but swiftly discovered he was a flea on the back of an angry hog.

You are quite wrong with the negotiations. They had started after IraqI and had proceeded off and on till there was a stand-off upon which sanctions were imposed. Later the desire was there to remove the Regime. The same is true for at least a dozen others that Bush did not get rid of. Had Saddam complied with the UN Resolution the US President could not do much. Thinking himself immunized with two Security Council vetoes plus Germany on his side Saddam did not comply. Thus the invasion was was not predetermined but was quite legitimate and legal.
 
I remember WAY back in 2002, telling everyone who would listen that this was a fiasco which would lead to untold deaths and wasting of treasure. Bush should be UNDER a jail as should every member of Congress who gave him the authority to invade. There are very few in government at the time, about 136 IIR, with clean hands. Colin Powell should be jailed as well.

It ranks up there in the annals of stupidity with Vietnam, the Spanish-American War, and the 'Toledo War'. (Look it up)

As a side note, each and every time I see a flag-draped coffin or a disabled veteran, I get pissed off all over again. How dare they push these young people in to a meat grinder like that and call it 'defending freedom'?
 
They did? LOL! Are you blind? Where/when/how, exactly? Iraq was nothing, whatsoever, like Austria or Japan after the war.

I'm not asking for generalizations, I'm asking for specifics.

If you cannot provide them, simply either say so or move on.

This is a wide topic, so if you want to talk specifics, why not make a start? Then I would know, where your mind wants to go.
 
Back
Top Bottom