Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

Irrelevant opinion of yours.

How can the points I made be irrelevant when they refute the points you made that you insist are relevant.

When one’s facts are wrong and dishonest it is extremely relevant to point out the truth in any honest discussion about by all parties.

Sorry, you cut the context. I don't even know specifically what the points were now.


Did you do that on purpose because I was kicking your butt?

 

[Correll]

you seem determined to focus on an individual tree

One tree wrote the surrender agreement with SH in 1991. The same tree wrote 1441 in November 2002. That tree is the United NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Do you think it was sitting else?

.... And?

Oh, am I supposed to be impressed?


I know I mentioned this, and I don't harp on it, because that is not how I roll, generally BUT.


I think Bush was wrong to go though the un. The UN sucks. The UN can go fuck themselves for all I care.


I admit that the UN was relevant here, because Bush choose to go though them. And I will address them.


But don't think your saying their name has any emotional impact on me.


Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist.


Maybe you can learn.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something,

You cannot disagree with facts. You have to refute them. It was a fact that SH cooperated with UN inspectors after 1441. It is a fact that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully while SH was cooperating during that time. All that makes it a fact that SH was not violating his 1991 ceasefire agreement with the UNSC in March 2003 when you and W decided to invade and kill civilians to accomplish the same goal that the UN was accomplishing peacefully.

Those are all facts not disagreements.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I think Bush was wrong to go though the un.

What was wrong with going through the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh, am I supposed to be impressed?

No! you are supposed to accept facts not avoid or hide them.

 

[Correll]

Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something,

You cannot disagree with facts. You have to refute them. It was a fact that SH cooperated with UN inspectors after 1441. It is a fact that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully while SH was cooperating during that time. All that makes it a fact that SH was not violating his 1991 ceasefire agreement with the UNSC in March 2003 when you and W decided to invade and kill civilians to accomplish the same goal that the UN was accomplishing peacefully.

Those are all facts not disagreements.

Stating that something is a "fact" does not mean that other people cannot disagree with it.

Especially when the point you are trying to make, is based on what other people thought in the PAST.


EVEN if you "prove" that you were right about something in the past, it is irrelevant, because the other people in question, even if you convince them NOW in the present, those other people still thought what they thought in the PAST.



That you seem to believe that you can somehow erase their past beliefs and decision making, so that you can attribute negative motives to them,


is you being delusional.


That you put all this effort into this, so that you can smear your partisan enemies, is pathetic.


It also, reveals that you have given up on advancing your ideas by making the argument that they are BETTER, than the ideas of your enemies.


You must really be intimidated by Trump and his ideas, to go such a long way around, to find a justification for talking shit about him and his supporters.

 

[Correll]

I think Bush was wrong to go though the un.

What was wrong with going through the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully?

Lots, imo. But it is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist.

If you don’t agree with the reality that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully from November 2002 through March 17 2003 then you cannot accept the fact that Iraq was very peaceful during that time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war,

and a Just Cause for War.

Pretty much sums up why you deserve the label of being a fascist.

 

[Correll]

Mmm, You should note how I can disagree with something, while not pretending it did not happen or exist.

If you don’t agree with the reality that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully from November 2002 through March 17 2003 then you cannot accept the fact that Iraq was very peaceful during that time.

I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.


You are being crazy.

 

[Correll]

There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war,

and a Just Cause for War.

Pretty much sums up why you deserve the label of being a fascist.

No, it doesn't.

Indeed that was a stupid thing to even say.


I supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.


A Just Cause for War, is a separate matter.


Just because a war has a Just Cause does not mean it is a good idea.


Your inability to do nuance, is pretty universal isn't it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You though, are claiming that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed" at a time, when you know that it was ALREADY disarmed.

You are a liar - I didnt know that Iraq was ALREADY disarmed on March 17 2003. I, like 60 percent of Americans wanted the honest answer to be determined by the peaceful process so innocent Iraqis would not suffer the consequences unless it became 100% clear that Iraq was hiding something and deserved to be taken out with more support from the rest of the world.


I agreed with Senator Biden who voted to give Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq at the time about a
Month before the invasion.

*I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that
another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.* Biden

Blix was also talking a few more months to resolve the outstanding issue and then begin long term monitoring according to the terms of his surrender agreement.

So I didnt know SH was not stockpiling WMD somehow. But a few more months of peaceful inspections was not fools
Mission as you say. It was a peaceful mission that would have achieved the truth without killing anybody to get it.

Stop lying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.

If you don’t care whether or not Iraq was peaceful why do you disagree with the reality that at that time it was very peaceful.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.

You have no right just because you are a white Christian American to kill innocent people to serve a long term interest. I’m sure Hitler believed invading Poland and France and bombing the shit out England was in Germany’s long term interest.

Hitler was a fascist not a great German patriot in case you didn’t know.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Stating that something is a "fact" does not mean that other people cannot disagree with it.

This is a fact:

It was a fact that SH cooperated with UN inspectors after 1441. It is a fact that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully while SH was cooperating during that time.


if you thought SH was not cooperating and it was not peaceful in Iraq at that time, you were suckered into believing the lies and propaganda from right wing warmongering white evangelicals and right wing talk radio. They were wrong. Just because you were suckered by the false pretenses for war you cannot now declare the truth about what happened back then doesn’t matter because you and your likeminded warmongering Republican know-nothings had it all wrong and you never can admit it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

supported the war because a good argument, imo, was made as to how it could serve long term US interests.

If the purpose of the war was long term US interest, do you think the innocent Iraqis you killed had a long term interest in something called living. Only a fascist would put nationalistic interest over an innocent person’s right to life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't care whether or not Iraq was "peaceful" at that time. That is not the way war works.

When the good nations have to choose war they are not supposed to be the ones that disturb the peace. You should care. You were lucky enough to be born or brought to a good nation. And it’s the most powerful nation on earth.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Lots, imo. But it is irrelevant to this thread.

The UN Security Council and UN are referenced in the AUMF that gave W the opportunity to choose war if necessary. Is the US Congress and the AUMF irrelevant to this discussion too?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

**** MARCH 06 2003 - PRESIDENT BUSH “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.

**** President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

**** Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”



*** DECEMBER 2002: SECRETARY POWELL: They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues

*** SECRETARY POWELL: We've never said that war is inevitable. The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. resolution?

*** Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

*** SECRETARY POWELL But at the same time, if Iraq does not cooperate or if we find reason to believe that they do have weapons of mass destruction that they have not identified and turned over to the international community, then the President has all of his options available to him. And he has the option of also going back to the United Nations or acting unilaterally with likeminded nations.

But a warmonger claims in post 27207599 that reality at the time does not matter or exist. History must be rewritten.

The inspectors were NOT peacefully disarming Iraq. The WMDs, we now know, were already destroyed. Thus, the claim that they were doing it, was not true. It was already done.

It was not known to the inspectors too: .

They now know SH was telling the truth that Iraq was clear of WMD. If the inspectors had three more months to resolve the unilaterally destroyed WMD in 1991 then half a million Iraqis would not be dead - if W had kept his fucking word.

Nearly 5000 Americans who served in the military would not have died in Iraq if W’s representatives didn’t go to the US SENATE to deliberately misinform the American people with updates like this:

* Mr. Armitage in a written statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq, a few days after the Blix sixty day report, these exact words, “The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.”

*JANUARY 30 2003 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, And the United States continued from that point on to support the continuation of inspections. *

If the inspections were averting the necessity for war on January 30 2003 it is a fact that by March 10 2003 there was nothing but improved inspections and cooperation from Iraq. That fact should not have caused or forced W to draft a second Resolution for a vote in the UN Security Council offering to cancel a US invasion, and leave SH in power, ONLY if the inspectors would declare Iraq disarmed by a March 17 deadline. If the inspectors could not, W wanted the UN to support whatever military action W decided to take.

The deadline date was rejected by the UNSC because although the inspectors were reporting proactive cooperation from the regime they also reported that in order to (1) verify that the unilaterally destroyed 1980s materials were verifiably destroyed and (2) to advance the enhanced inspections into southern Iraq - it would take a few more months. Say by June 2003.

Half a million Iraqis and 5000 Americans were killed in a needless war because W Could not give inspectors three more months to finish their work in a process that was going on for 12 years. FACT!

Biden addressed those three months in February.

***** Senator Joe Biden: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq.

Wise man - that Joe BIden.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.

The invading army was never going to find the WMD’s. It was as you say a fools errand that killed half a million Iraqis.

At least the inspectors on a fools errand were not killing and maiming and breaking things while in it.


That you support the killing spree fools errand says a lot about you.