>>Mod Warning<< Thoughts on the War in Iraq

Charles ran the ISG. His book was written in 2009. Your article is from 2005.

But included in your article is verification of what Duelfer said (he's quoted) and that the investigation continued.

 

Iraq was a safe, stable, and secure constitutional republic until Obama gave it away. The US gained nothing due to Obama's colossal blunder.

 

The Iraq war was illegal. Bush and Blair justified it on lies, on false information. Both warmongers are wandering free, many thousands (army personal and citizens) lost their lives.

 

What jails ?? What prisoners ??

 

Who knew that the intelligence was faulty ??

 

You were given the information. You just don't like it

 

That's funny. More conspiracy theories 10 years later ?? Who knew before the invasion and warned about it ??

 

And there were no WMD's found. Period

 

Don't read it. You won't like it

 

You own article proves you wrong. But denial is strong.

 

Not according to anyone that can read. LOL

 

Two bipartisan investigations showed that it was bad intelligence that led Bush to go to war. That Congress had the same intelligence that Bush had. Including some that showed there were disagreements on what Iraq had and didn't have between the different intelligence agencies. But all the agencies did agree that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and what he didn't have he was trying to attain. That Iraq would always be a danger to America and his neighbors in the Middle East.

 

Chilcot

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

 

Show me a quote of the EXACT WMD's found. LOL

 

More comedy.

 

There was a lot of disagreement

 

The Chilcot inquiry says otherwise.

 

The war was in 2003 - not 2016.

 

They recommended not to invade in 2003 because they had information that Iraq had no WMD's in 2003 ??

 

Are you seriously wanting a reply to that !!

 

The Chilcot Inquiry started 2009 and was published in 2016

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

 

Panetta said:

I don't see an indication that Panetta was talking about expanding to the point of independent combat operations.

So, your quotes are still within the training and support role, which was as much as we could get subsequent to the Bush SOFA.

Remember that I've ALWAYS indicated the training and support nature of our presence and clearly specified that the line was drawn against independent combat operations by US troops.

Plus, it's an historic fact that we DID remain with a training and support presence, supporting Iraq in their civil war against Sunnis, including civilians. We made various efforts to be a moderating force, but the Iraqi direction at the time WAS that civil war which DID include attacks on (and zero cooperation with) Sunnis both civilian and non civilian.


And, there is no chance that Iraq would have agreed to more than a training and support role for US troops. Nor was Iraq interested in inclusion of Sunnis, though Obama's direction did work in that inclusion with some of our training capacity.

 

I have from the link you posted - reading is your friend.

 

A residual force exactly as we did in Japan, Europe, and Korea.

The Sunnis were well represented in the Iraqi military and legislature until Obama pulled out.

 

Not really, they gave a bunch of reasons they believed not to, and that is just their opinion, like "
There was no imminent threat from Saddam
Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the UK joint intelligence committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds. Britain’s previous strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time."

True, we weren't worried Iraq would attack us right away. Iran and N. Korea were a big concern. To say Libya was a greater threat than Iraq is ludicrous. Iraq had already used chemical weapons on their own people and Iran. Had nuclear material and our intelligence said he was working on developing nuclear weapons. We sure didn't want Iraq to become another N. Korea. Once they have nuclear weapons, your not going in there and invade. You may not like why Bush invaded, but he can only go on the advise of his intelligence. The head of the CIA said the evidence against Iraq was a slam dunk.