Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Your dismissal of my belief that Saddam could not be trusted to truly cooperate, does not change that fact that that was something I believed then and it was a part of my thought process that led me to support war.

You did not test your belief and you ability to acquire truth about whether SH would cooperate with inspectors or not by using easily observable reality and the massively reported confirmation that SH was cooperating from the Administration that was promoting the possible need for war if SH did not cooperate with one last final round of inspections.

The White House was promoting peaceful resolution of the Inspections process all the way up to March 10 2003.

Your belief that no cooperation was possible from SH with inspectors on March 10 2003 was a self delusion or the result that you paid no attention to public knowledge throughout the ramp up to war.

Your belief on this matter is no different than a belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and died on the cross and was resurrected three days later and spoke to his followers..

You believe it because you want to.

Your deliberate invalid belief led you to support and continue to support the killing of half a million Iraqis yet you do not appear to have reflected upon WWJD.


When the head of the Catholic Church said let the inspections continue I can accept the inference that is what Jesus would have wanted done. Not what the white evangelical Christian nationalists in America wanted done.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Powell being satisfied that Saddam was "cooperating" with inspectors by letting them travel around and look for shit, was not convincing.

In the legal sense Powell’s definition of of cooperating was sufficient that it meant war was not inevitable. So it matters not what a warmongers definition of cooperation might be. In the legal sense Powell was satisfied that SH was meeting the terms of 1441.

 

[Correll]

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. ...

Stop right there. I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now. Thus my point was about your claiming it as a fact, when you KNOW know that it is false.


You keep playing stupid games like that. Either you are purposefully and dishonestly missing my point, in order to dodge and muddle,

or you are far less precise than you pretend to be.


Either way, it makes your entire style of minute... narrative, impossible and thus worthless.

 

[Correll]

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.

Probably because you asked me or in response to a point you made.

Then you assumed that was a motive for war, and built on top of that mistake an accusation to make against, me, and then made it and still believe it, even though it was refuted AND, will use it again, over and over again, because you are either dishonest or deluded.

 

[Correll]

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 ...

We've gone over this a lot. YOu are playing stupid now.

My support and the legal and moral Justification for a Just War, are two distinct and different things.


That you keep trying to conflate them is just you playing stupid games so you have an excuse to insult me as part of the logical fallacy of Proof by Ridicule used as propaganda.


That you so often pepper this portion of your exercise with references to race and religion, is just you being racist and a religious bigot.

 

[Correll]

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.

....

No, it's not. Iraq was NOT "being disarmed". If you believed that at the time, you were wrong.

 

[Correll]

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.

Was FDR a fascist? He supported the entry of America into WWII, to serve long term US interests.

Or is your "definition" of fascist, just a handful of shit you throw at me, like a monkey?

Do you want to discuss seriously, the idea of what is a valid reason to support war, or are you just here to throw shit like a monkey?

 

[Correll]

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.

No, it doesn't. You see it and then make up shit in your head. Very self serving shit.

 

[Correll]

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.

Whoa. "Good nations"? THat is a new concept to introduce, at post 2000 in this thread.


Is this the way you think the world should be? THat "good nations" should NEVER "disturb peace"?

If so, just say so. Drop this shit show about a past war, and make your case for the way you think the world SHOULD be.

 

[Correll]

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?

The way it is supposed to work, is that Congress is supposed to declare war, and then the President is supposed to wage it.

It was set up that way, for reasons. It is not a good idea to wage war by committee. You need a leader, not debate.

Congress has chosen to stop doing it that way that makes sense.

That is on them. They choose to make themselves less relevant.

 

[Correll]

t 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.

You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds.


ME? I assume that the inspectors would have made a report, giving themselves some ass covering incase afterwards that Saddam used some wmds, and asking for more time to be more certain and that Bush would have been faced with giving them more time, "knowing" that the inspectors were anti-war and would never admit failure or moving ahead with war. And sooner or later, he would stop giving them more time.

 

[Correll]

You did not test your belief and you ability to acquire truth about whether SH would cooperate with inspectors or not by using easily observable reality and the massively reported confirmation that SH was cooperating from the Administration

Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?

No. Not at all. You have the right to be an ignorant and duped voter. Its the American Way.

 

[surada]

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. ...

Stop right there. I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now. Thus my point was about your claiming it as a fact, when you KNOW know that it is false.


You keep playing stupid games like that. Either you are purposefully and dishonestly missing my point, in order to dodge and muddle,

or you are far less precise than you pretend to be.


Either way, it makes your entire style of minute... narrative, impossible and thus worthless.

Most Americans with any knowledge of the Middle East opposed the invasion BEFORE the fact..

That includes oilmen, expats, diplomats and historians.

 

[Correll]

Do you believe that voting should be limited to people that are able and can be trusted to do that type of thing, with all important issues? or just warmaking issues?

No. Not at all. You have the right to be an ignorant and duped voter. Its the American Way.

Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T or DON'T do it, vote, what is your answer?

 

[Correll]

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. ...

Stop right there. I clearly did not claim that you KNEW it then, my point was that you KNOW it now. Thus my point was about your claiming it as a fact, when you KNOW know that it is false.


You keep playing stupid games like that. Either you are purposefully and dishonestly missing my point, in order to dodge and muddle,

or you are far less precise than you pretend to be.


Either way, it makes your entire style of minute... narrative, impossible and thus worthless.

Most Americans with any knowledge of the Middle East opposed the invasion BEFORE the fact..

That includes oilmen, expats, diplomats and historians.

That's nice. Now run along and go play.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds.

You are full of shit and here is why I don’t have to assume what W or the inspectors would have done if the inspectors were satisfied that Iraq possessed no WMD on or before March 17, 2003 or a few months later after that. I have their words.


**** 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.”


BLIX *** Mr. President,
Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;

Recent Items

www.un.org

*** it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.



I cannot know fir certain that W invaded Iraq if the inspectors were permitted to complete their work on June 17 2003.


I’m saying W would have been forced by then to produce the physical evidence somehow that the WMD that did not exist actual existed. We found out the hard way by killing half a million Iraqis because warmongering Anericans bemieved W had the physical evidence that is impossible fir him have.

Three extra months of inspections would have crumbled the justification for military action because doubt in W’s evidence was growing higher every day.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T or DON'T do it, vote, what is your answer?

What is yiour coherent question?

 

[Correll]

You are ASSuming that the inspectors would have been willing to go out on a limb, certify that Iraq was wmd free, and make the case strongly enough to convince a man, that was deeply convinced that Saddam was an evil and vile mass murderer who needed to be removed from power and who had wmds.

You are full of shit and here is why I don’t have to assume what W or the inspectors would have done if the inspectors were satisfied that Iraq possessed no WMD on or before March 17, 2003 or a few months later after that. I have their words.


**** 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.”


BLIX *** Mr. President,
Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;

Recent Items

www.un.org

*** it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.



I cannot know fir certain that W invaded Iraq if the inspectors were permitted to complete their work on June 17 2003.


I’m saying W would have been forced by then to produce the physical evidence somehow that the WMD that did not exist actual existed. We found out the hard way by killing half a million Iraqis because warmongering Anericans bemieved W had the physical evidence that is impossible fir him have.

Three extra months of inspections would have crumbled the justification for military action because doubt in W’s evidence was growing higher every day.

"Forced by what" exactly? By whom?

YOu are making assumptions. Which is fine. But you are pretending that they are facts and judging others for not agreeing with you.

That is you being an ass.

 

[Correll]

Well then, as you seem to want that done, (with all important issues or just war?), yet you want to let those that CAN'T or DON'T do it, vote, what is your answer?

What is yiour coherent question?

Jeeze, maybe if you didn't cut away EVERYTHING, you would know.