Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

I’m not looking for American wider strategic goals as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. I’m looking for your moral justification for killing innocent Iraqis in a country where violence was not present when the invasion was launched. If nobody is dying, what was so fucking urgent in March 19, 2003 that as you say the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

B

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

At the time (the end of December 2002) I was able to trust Colin Powell , the Secretary of State, who stated quite clearly that Iraq was cooperating and if that cooperation continued Powell said war was not inevitable.

It was not a matter of trusting SH. It was a bigger concern whether to believe W when he told us he wanted peace and would only resort to war as a last resort.

The government that wants to start a war should be the government you cannot trust.

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “

False pretenses

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national...

publicintegrity.org

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”

 

[Correll]

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.

Are you seriously unable to distinguish in your mind, between asking someone their PERSONAL reasons for supporting a war, and asking someone their opinion on the legal and moral justification for a war?

The one is why I was convinced that war was viable policy choice, that could serve long term American national security interests and make the world a better place.

THe other is why I think that starting or more accurately RESUMING war, was morally and "legally" justifiable.

The War on Terror was part of the STRATEGIC long term goal of the invasion.


You keep trying to simplify, really OVER SIMPLIFY a very complex decision making process down to a child like level.


That bit were you say, "you're looking for a credible explanation"?


That is you using your inability to think clearly in order to be an ass. You've been given a credible explanation. That you don't agree, does not mean it does not exist. You are either very dishonest, or have a real pathology with your thinking.

 

[Correll]

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?

A document is not a fact. It is a statement from the person that wrote the document.

Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction.

That was him failing to live up to the terms of the cease fire.

BOOM, moral and "legal" justification for resuming hostilities.

 

[Correll]

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?

Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.

 

[Correll]

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 ....

Sorry, you're back to playing silly games again.


Why did you do that? Did it feel like you were losing the argument, if you weren't peppering all your posts with hysterical drama?

 

[Correll]

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.

I’m not looking for American wider strategic goals as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. I’m looking for your moral justification for killing innocent Iraqis in a country where violence was not present when the invasion was launched. If nobody is dying, what was so fucking urgent in March 19, 2003 that as you say the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?

 

[Correll]

B

I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

At the time (the end of December 2002) I was able to trust Colin Powell , the Secretary of State, who stated quite clearly that Iraq was cooperating and if that cooperation continued Powell said war was not inevitable.

It was not a matter of trusting SH. It was a bigger concern whether to believe W when he told us he wanted peace and would only resort to war as a last resort.

The government that wants to start a war should be the government you cannot trust.

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “

False pretenses

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national...

publicintegrity.org

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”

That was a nice demonstration of logical fallacies. Overall a nice Gish Gallop fallacy but with additional Appeal to Authorities and others buried inside of it.


Consider that nonsense dismissed. My point stands, I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't see

Sums your arguments quite well. You are morally blind when you go with your tribe to kill non-Christians in an unnecessary war of aggression on their land.

 

[Correll]

I don't see

Sums your arguments quite well. You are morally blind when you go with your tribe to kill non-Christians in an unnecessary war of aggression on their land.

The crux of our disagreement is your refusal to acknowledge the existence of arguments that you disagree with.

THat means that you are stuck in an endless loop of asking questions, but then ignoring the answers.


You do this so that you can smear your current political enemies.


As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".


The result of this is, that everything you say and do with regards to this, (and I suspect other issues) is irrelevant and cannot result in ANYTHING, because you refuse to actually address the real questions and lessons of the war, (or I suspect, any issue) in pursuit of your real goal, ie, cheap partisan points.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?

What is dishonest about these questions?

If nobody is dying, what was it so fucking urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

The first fact is - no one anywhere was dying or gonna die from disarming Iraq peacefully. Do you agree?

The second fact is - many Iraqis will die when the decision is made to disarm Tge regime by bombing and invading their land. Do you agree?


So why do you still support and have excuse the second fact that ended up killing half a million Iraqis for no good reason whatsoever?

 

[Correll]

WHy do you need to use dishonest and appeal to emotion rhetoric in phrasing your "questions"?

What is dishonest about these questions?

If nobody is dying, what was it so fucking urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.

2. Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.

3. The rest of the shit, I cut so that we don't get distracted from your question and my answer to it.

4. Now you will demonstrate that you did not care about that question, by not responding seriously to my answer.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.

No. Its the establishment of a fact that should be heavily weighed by decision makers when pondering if it is necessary to take military action where a lot of people will be dying including our own.

Regarding the WMD threat in Iraq during March 2003 there were two options for dealing with the threat. One option nobody gets killed - your option was to kill innocent people in order to deal with the threat that you didn’t think was a threat.


I understand

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.

It is absolutely true that not one single Iraqi was going to be killed by the UN inspectors that were in Iraq to disarm Iraq. it is absolutely true that the BAATHIST regime was not committing genocide or killing Iraqis when it was in proactive cooperation with the inspectors as required in the 1441 documents that W drafted as a means to avoid war.

Truth is truth. Your disregard of the truth is duly noted and is archived.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.

Answer all you want, liar.

What is dishonest about these questions?

If nobody is dying, what was it so fucking urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".

You are morally blind if you could not see the observable fact that SH was cooperating fully under 1441 so that you can justify killing half a million IRAQIS because their dictator was guilty of not cooperating. It verifies the fact that you are morally depraved when given the chance to have Muslim people killed who could never do anything to kill or harm you. Just stating the facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A document is not a fact.

You are an idiot. 1441 is legal documentation to establish facts, rules and obligations by the parties involved.

I own 2 homes and 3 motor vehicles and I keep the documents that prove the fact that I own them in a fireproof safe. On our primary home we had a mortgage where obligations were set forth on paper using language so that all parties could understand the FACTS of the agreement.

The bank loaned us money we paid it back the house is ours according to the facts. it is not someone’s opinion that I own my home cars and motorcycle. It is a documented legal and binding fact.

1441 is the same as that. It is a fact. It gave SH a final opportunity to comply. He was required to cooperate by allowing UN inspectors into the country and giving them unrestricted access to whatever site they chose to visit. SH did that. You cannot disagree with that fact. There was no deadline for final verification of Iraq being fully disarmed. You cannot stipulate additional requirements that are not in the document such as ‘handing over a big pile of WMD that he does not have’ .

Who do you think you are? No one cares that you couldn’t see SH cooperating under 1441. That was an undisputed observable FACT that all could see except warmongers thirsting for Muslim blood such as you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why did you do that?

I want you to answer the questions as written.

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 disarming IRAQ In such a way that includes KILLING Iraqi CIVILIANS?

Its a fair question.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position.

When you take a position like that what do you base it on? How would you know W was sure, fully convinced that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors after 1441?

If Bush was ‘sure’ It was NOT based on what he was told by the REAL intelligence community.

If W really had the certainty you believe he had about those large stockpiles of WMD being hidden in Iraq, he fabricated the certainty and he ignored all the available expertise that was leaning much more in the direction that active WMD was not there as SH clearly stated.

***** In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up.

***** In December 2002, Bush declared, “We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.” That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.” Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong. That is my position. YOURS is that somehow, you are sure that that means he was lying

Once a liar to establish a false pretense for invading a Muslim nation that rich in cheap high grade oil reserves is always a liar.

*****9/7/02 Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.

I see no reason to give W the benefit of doubt that he somehow turned holy and honest about Iraq’s WMD.