Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Peace treaties or agreements are serious shit.

Then why don’t you get serious about the agency that the peace agreement was with and try to understand what 1441 was.

* R - The Washington Post
April 7, 1991. UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 6 -- Iraq today accepted the U.N. Security Council's tough resolution formally ending the Persian Gulf War in exchange for President Saddam Hussein's agreement to give up all weapons of mass ...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So, you claim. Y

What in the claim are you challenging?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I did not say that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

I said that the INVASION of Iraq, was part of the war on terror.

Why was the ‘invasion’ of Iraq part of the war on terror but Iraq was not?

I’ll ask you again:

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

 

[Correll]

Peace treaties or agreements are serious shit.

Then why don’t you get serious about the agency that the peace agreement was with and try to understand what 1441 was.

* R - The Washington Post
April 7, 1991. UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 6 -- Iraq today accepted the U.N. Security Council's tough resolution formally ending the Persian Gulf War in exchange for President Saddam Hussein's agreement to give up all weapons of mass ...

Because I don't give a fuck about the un.

My point stands. IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.

Because you can't trust the defeated enemy to abide by anything they say.

 

[Correll]

So, you claim. Y

What in the claim are you challenging?

Something in the part you cut. Doesn't matter. You don't care about it, from teh way you cut it, and thus neither do I.

 

[Correll]

I did not say that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

I said that the INVASION of Iraq, was part of the war on terror.

Why was the ‘invasion’ of Iraq part of the war on terror but Iraq was not?

I’ll ask you again:

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?

It makes it look like you are trying to conflate different subjects.


If you want to discuss the invasion of Iraq being part of the war on terror, let's discuss that.


If you want to pepper the question with Appeal to Emotions and Begging the question fallacies with phrases like "terrorize" or "blitzkried" or "shock and awe", then I can't be bothered.

You choose.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here you offer what you think justified starting a major war in Iraq.

They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.

The major agreement was for Iraq to give up WMD.


* IRAQ ACCEPTS U.N. TERMS TO END GULF WAR By John M. GoshkoApril 7, 1991 UNITED NATIONS, APRIL 6 -- Iraq today accepted the U.N. Security Council's tough resolution formally ending the Persian Gulf War in exchange for President Saddam Hussein's agreement to give up all weapons of mass destruction and pay damages for its seven-month occupation of Kuwait.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/04/07/iraq-accepts-un-terms-to-end-gulf-war/9800a4ea-62c1-4215-8119-f21cf4630b78/

But you contradict your own justification right here:

Because I don't give a fuck about the un.

I know you don’t because you want to kill innocent humans whenever you feel like it.

You say you don’t give a fuck about the UN but you claim Iraq’s historical violations of a UN Agreement to disarm was a justification for killing half a million Iraqis. You wrote “ They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war”


But a while back you wrote:

Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

Sometimes you say Iraq’s failure to disarm justified the US invasion. sometimes you say disarming Iraq was not what convinced you to support the war.
Sometimes you don’t give a fuck about the UN agreement to disarm Iraq

sometimes you say It was nation building that legitimated the killing of innocent people in Iraq. Sometimes you say it
was not.

So who knows.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.

But W was good with 1441 and then SH was complying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?

here’s the question again:

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you want to pepper the question with Appeal to Emotions and Begging the question fallacies with phrases like "terrorize" or "blitzkried" or "shock and awe", then I can't be bothered.

SHOCK and AWE was not a fallacy. The roll into Baghdad from Kuwait was a Blitzkrieg. It terrorized Iraqis.

You say you cant be bothered to explain why you supported the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe that terrorized Iraqis and caused half a million of them to die?

You need more than a good dose of bothering that is for sure.

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

Why?

 

[Correll]

Here you offer what you think justified starting a major war in Iraq.

They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.

The major agreement was for Iraq to give up WMD.


.....

Among others. They failed to meet them, to abide by them or at least to give documentation that they had done so.


Thus, the ceasefire was violated.

Thus, resuming warfare was legally and morally justifiable.


I know that you disagree with this. Please spare me any Appeal to Emotion bullshit.


If you think that failing to meet the terms of a ceasefire does not justify a war, explain what you base that on.

 

[Correll]

IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.

But W was good with 1441 and then SH was complying.
IF violating a peace treaty or agreement carries no cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end, every time.

If violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.

 

[Correll]

Why are asking a question and then immediately changing the subject?

here’s the question again:

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

That was all explained to you many times before. Are you pretending to have memory issues?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

f violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.

No. Iraq was not violating the 1991 UN Resolution and subsequent Resolutions in March 2003. That is a matter of fact. SH was in violation until 1441. So when inspections resumed in December 2002 Iraq was not violating its 1991 ceasefire agreement in any way.

 

[Correll]

f violating a peace treaty or agreement carries not cost, then that means that wars have to be fought to the bitter end.

No. Iraq was not violating the 1991 UN Resolution and subsequent Resolutions in March 2003. That is a matter of fact. SH was in violation until 1441. So when inspections resumed in December 2002 Iraq was not violating his 1991 ceasefire agreement in any way.

Your weird consideration of statements from politically motivated non-credible persons, as "facts" has been well discussed.

I disagree.


My point stands. Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.


I would thank you to not pretend to forget that, or confuse a goal of the war, or a consideration of it's wider strategic importance as the justification, again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was all explained to you many times before. Are you pretending to have memory issues?

But you originally said you bought the nation building argument for war but have since abandoned that one.

Now it goes something like SH violated the UN Resolution to disarm but that was not true when W started the war in 2003.

And you tossed in the War on Terror was the reason you attacked a nation that was not part of the terrorists that attacked us.


So I’m looking for a credible explanation to see if you have anything besides the jokes you have presented thus far.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your weird consideration of statements from politically motivated non-credible persons, as "facts" has been well discussed.

WHAT is not a fact. Read 1441. That’s the FACT I am citing. What are you using for a source that confirms SH was not abiding by UNSC 1441 when W put an end to inspections to start Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE.

Your opinion does not delete historical documents that are readable and clear. SADDAM was cooperating under 1441 and I cited COLIN Powell in December 2002. He is I hope a credible source for you.

what are you citing?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My point stands. Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.

Based on what? Was the peace agreement a UN Legal matter? WAS 1441 a related UN legal matter? What gives you the authority to disregard one but enforce the other?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was violating the terms on the peace agreement and resumption of hostilities was legally and morally justified.

Why resume hostilities that will potentially kill scores of innocent people when the Iraq regime and the UN are peacefully engaged in the non-violent ‘mission’ to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction?

WHY DID YOU SUPPORT KILLING Iraqi CIVILIANS TO ENFORCE A UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION dated to 1991 that ordered the Iraq regime to disarm?

The moral choice facing adult Americans in March 2003 was whether to verify Iraq was disarmed under the peaceful process that would not get one innocent Iraqi killed. Or … support what Bush ultimately decided to do as he says “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction by military invasion (war.) Of course the war “option” guaranteed that scores of innocent Iraqis will die to achieve the identical result.

And you have the depravity to call your choice in favor of the war option to achieve the same result where nobody gets killed and nobody kills a moral choice.


You have no idea what morality is. You should shut up about it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

One of W’s big lie helpers in the ramp up to Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe died today at 88. Review the dastardly things he said before and after the invasion of Iraq disasters and you will begin to understand the depth of the crime of starting a war under false pretenses.

No one should mourn his death. His legacy is all the needless deaths and dismemberment his arrogance and lies caused.