Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.
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.
Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?
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.
I never claimed nation building as Just Cause.
A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.
The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.
Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.
IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.
Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?
1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.
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.
....
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.
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?
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.
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.
Why did you do that?
I want you to answer the questions as written.
...
No, you don't
Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.
Your two points are not why Bush Declared war on Iraq and told the inspectors to get out on March 17 2003. Those two points were not requirements contained in 1441.
The unilaterally destroyed WMD was known when 1441 was passed. So you are wrong.
THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.
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.
What agency wrote the terms of the ceasefire?
1441 became the most recent applicable terms of the ceasefire. It was drafted and voted in favor by the United States of America and 14 other members in the UN SECURITY Council. ALL FACT.
SH was not required to provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed by March 17 2003 or any other set date. SH was required to cooperate with inspectors until they were satisfied that the issue could be closed.
SH was not required by 1441. to turn over wmds, for destruction. Indeed because Iraq immediately provided a declaration in accordance with 1441 that they had no WMD or program’s to make them. How can 1441 require Iraq to hand over WMD when Iraq declared the truth that they did not have WMD?
W gave the “Curveball” Intel about the mobile bio weapons facilities to the inspectors to verify. That bogus Intel contained specific reference to an actual physical building where it was claimed that secret rooms/false partitions where truck trailers were being hidden behind fake walls. Curveball made sketches supposedly showing how the mobile bioweapons facilities were built and kept hidden until moved. The inspectors went to the place where Curveball said he worked and saw the hidden trailers. No such secret rooms existed. Curveball was a liar.
On 3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council and the public that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq” based on examination of W’s strongest evidence that SH was hiding something very deadly.
Bush was told that the mobile bioweapons facilities did not exist. WIth a little checking W could have found that the CIA didn’t find Curveball to be a reliable source.
A month earlier In a radio address to the nation, Bush warned that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.
A couple days before W’s radio address CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech by Powell. They leave it in.
It was getting very obvious in public that if W decided to invade to disarm Iraq of WMD there was not going to be any to find. But W did just that. AS Trump says W lied us into war. A Very dumb and unnecessary war.
Irrelevant opinion of yours.
Correll #1 answered yes to my question from the following post27097208
Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?
The answer yes to that question can be found in post27097661
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.
Correll #2 later denies that nation building would be a just cause for war.
post27390066 nation building NOT as an argument for war.
I never claimed nation building as Just Cause.
But nation building was a justifying argument for war according to Correll #1 most of the time:
post27089576 nation building as an argument for war.
A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.
post27097661 nation building as an argument for war.
The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.
post27172141 nation building as an argument for war.
Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.
post: 27201989 nation building as an argument for war.
IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.
post27202160 nation building as an argument for war.
Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?
1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.
Its not what the inspectors claimed they were doing in and regarding Iraq’s alleged active WMD programs and stockpiles from November 27 2002 when SH let them in to peacefully enforce 1441 through March 18 2003 when W forced them to leave - It was an observable FACT that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully because no violence, death torture or dismembered and civil rights abuses were happening on Iraqi territory during that time. Then Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe began to disarm Iraq with violence killing and dismemberment and military occupation as the enforcement policy by the US government that was not prepared to do it.
you seem determined to focus on an individual tree
No, you don't
Yes I do. You are avoiding the questions because you have no legitimate or morally acceptable answers. That all this is.
THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.
Is that true for the US military operation to find hidden WMD as well.
Why did you support a fools errand?
