Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

And you just give them a pass for their choice

You are a liar. They get no pass from me. I’m only saying that W is responsible for outsider insurgents and telling them to bring the attacks against American Troops on.


** BUSH: Let me finish. There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.


Yeah! Right you did!

If you were sympathetic to him and wanted to put a positive, instead of negative spin on his words,

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.


But you are biased against him, the President of the United States, a "white, Christian, nationalist" as you so often put it,


while the outsider insurgents, are "brown, Muslim, and NOT nationalists", so they get a positive bias from you and you

don't hold them as "bloodthirsty" even though they did what you pretend upsets you, ie, choose an optional war, with the

attending collateral damage.

That is hypocrisy from you, and probably racism and anti-Christian bigotry. And a weird bigotry against nationalists, for some ideological reason.

 

[Correll]

And you just give them a pass for their choice and put the responsibility for their actions on W, and his supporters.


That is indefensible. And immoral.

Why are W and his warmonger supporters like you not responsible for creating the conditions that incubated an insurgency in Iraq following the US invasion to disarm Iraq of WMD.


“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

<a href="/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.v.smil"></a>Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

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.”

The PRIMARY RESPONSIBLE for a person's actions, in on that person. That is the base meaning of responsibility.


If, AFTER you condemned the outsider insurgents, with the same fervor that you condemned President Bush, you wanted to ALSO discuss "the conditions" that would be legitimate, but your easy acceptance of their perspective, and the shifting of primary responsibility to someone else for their actions and choices, makes that a Lie. You would not be discussing that issue, but actually supporting the shifting of responsibility.

 

[Correll]

you have been USING the dead, desecrating them, verbally,

That’s an interesting mutilated rationality that the people that you supported killing are being verbally desecrated when I object to your rationale that killing them was necessary so they can ‘live’ in a democratic nation that you will build for them.

You say I’m desecrating the half a million Iraqis that that ended up dead due to W’s decision to disarm Iraq of WMD by a war of aggression and incompetent occupation of Iraq that you supported and continue to support the invasion that caused their unnecessary deaths. I’m speaking for them because they can’t because you supported the world leader when he decided that some Iraqis needed to become collateral damage in a war to disarm Iraq violently.

Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.


That you continue to lie about that, is just another layer of proof, in the mountain of proof, that you are a dishonest debater, and that your arguments do not hold together and that your goal is not to prevent future wars, but just to smear your enemies.


You also continue to spin and mischaracterize my words and positions on the civilian causalities. That is a dick move.


Why are you being a dick?

 

[9thIDdoc]

then ignored a UN ultimatum.

You are a liar. IRAQ was not ‘at war’ with any nation up to and after the date 1441 was passed in November 2002.

Bush said he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully up until March 10, 2003. POWELL said War was not inevitable at the same time when he said Iraq was cooperating.

*** MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: “And if it does, {cooperate) war is not inevitable?”

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

2001-2009.state.gov

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

If “WAR” was not inevitable in December 2002 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground inside Iraq with Iraq cooperating according to Secretary Powell, how were we ‘at war’ with Iraq in December 2002?

You are a liar. Iraq did not ignore 1441. Iraq was in FACT cooperating with 200 UN inspectors 2.5 months prior to the invasion AND war was not inevitable according to Sec of State Colin Powell:

*** Colin Powell's remarks on ABC's This Week with George Stephanoplous: war is not “inevitable” DECEMBER 2002

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos

2001-2009.state.gov

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

(1) Is the ceasefire agreement with the United States or with the United Nations?

(2) Are you saying Iraq was at war with the United Nations ever since 1991?

(3) Where are you getting such language? Does QAnon have an international law branch now too?

Educate yourself:

Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts

Persian Gulf War, conflict (1990–91) triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring its large oil reserves, canceling a large debt owed to Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi regional power. A U.S.-led invasion ended Iraq’s occupation and required Iraq to divest of its weapons...

www.britannica.com

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
On August 3 the United Nations Security Council called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and on August 6 the council imposed a worldwide ban on trade with Iraq.
Iraq’s invasion and the potential threat it then posed to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, prompted the United States and its western European NATO allies to rush troops to Saudi Arabia to deter a possible attack. Egypt and several other Arab nations joined the anti-Iraq coalition and contributed forces to the military buildup, known as Operation Desert Shield. Iraq meanwhile built up its occupying army in Kuwait to about 300,000 troops.
On November 29 the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq if it did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. By January 1991 the allied coalition against Iraq had reached a strength of 700,000 troops, including 540,000 U.S. personnel and smaller numbers of British, French, Egyptians, Saudis, Syrians, and several other national contingents. Saddam steadfastly refused to withdraw Iraqi forces from Kuwait, however, which he maintained would remain a province of Iraq.
The allied coalition’s military offensive against Iraq began on January 16–17, 1991,...
By the time that U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush declared a cease-fire for February 28, Iraqi resistance had completely collapsed.
The terms of the peace were, inter alia, that Iraq recognize Kuwait’s sovereignty and that it divest itself of all weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and all missiles with ranges exceeding 90 miles (150 km). Pending complete compliance, economic sanctions would continue.
In the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shīʿites in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated “no-fly” zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq’s failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century. In 2002 the United States sponsored a new UN resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors, who then reentered Iraq in November.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush—seeking no further UN endorsement—issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war;...
When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.
---------------------------
The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.

I appeal to FACTS and having The magnificence of human reason applied to them. I can understand since you are a tribal right wing cultural Christian that faces and reason and The documented historical record are not that important to you.

However when the facts and applied thinking and reason upset you to the point of whining and complaining and bitching about everything and In a knee jerk fashion I don’t see how that is my problem. It seems to be yours.

So get a grip on yourself and try thinking and examining facts for a change.

 

[surada]

And you just give them a pass for their choice

You are a liar. They get no pass from me. I’m only saying that W is responsible for outsider insurgents and telling them to bring the attacks against American Troops on.


** BUSH: Let me finish. There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.


Yeah! Right you did!

If you were sympathetic to him and wanted to put a positive, instead of negative spin on his words,

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.


But you are biased against him, the President of the United States, a "white, Christian, nationalist" as you so often put it,


while the outsider insurgents, are "brown, Muslim, and NOT nationalists", so they get a positive bias from you and you

don't hold them as "bloodthirsty" even though they did what you pretend upsets you, ie, choose an optional war, with the

attending collateral damage.

That is hypocrisy from you, and probably racism and anti-Christian bigotry. And a weird bigotry against nationalists, for some ideological reason.

Trump claimed that he was a Nationalist, but to be fair he probably doesn't know that that means. He's dumb as a GD stump.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.

Are you stupid like Correll. Go back and review what I wrote. You can read cant you? My point is clear. IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect. Iraq was domestically peaceful and was committing no acts of military aggression from at least November 2002 up to the minute that W started the war of aggression that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason. Those are facts abd nothing in your wall of words disputes those facts.

So you continue to be a liar.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.

I understand you must cheapen language to continue to sit high and mighty on your cultural Christian throne but come on get your nose out of W’s ass long enough to find out that language has meanings that you shouldn’t toss around and change to suit whatever pathetic argument you just dreamed up.

I take W’s ‘bring ‘em on comment’ to be a taunt - a stupid remark meant to anger or provoke an Iraqi even more who may have lost someone or something because of the invasion and would be looking around to hook up with other pissed off Muslim males thinking they need to take W up on his offer. And they did.

But the real point here is that W was not prepared to counter the catastrophe that would come when those opposed to the occupation decided to bring the insurgency on.

You support that failure crap and still kiss W’s ass. Must be tribal instinct to keep your lips wet for your leaders.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In 2002 the United States sponsored a new UN resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors, who then reentered Iraq in November.

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.

Can you find any skirmishes at all following the 1991 cease fire that had something to do with Iraq re-invading or attacking Kuwait?

It appears the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait held. So you really are a liar -a dumb liar but a liar just the same.

 

[Correll]

Nope. I'm fine with discussing the cost of the war. What I have objected to, is your use of the dead as APPEALS TO EMOTION.

I appeal to FACTS and having The magnificence of human reason applied to them.

No, you don't. You wallow in focusing on the innocent children or some such shit, when it serves your partisan purpose, but gloss over them, when it does not, like when discussing the choices and actions of the outside insurgents. So, that claim of yours is just a lie.

I can understand since you are a tribal right wing cultural Christian that faces and reason and The documented historical record are not that important to you.

Lets see, you got several types of bigotry there, and unsupported accusations.

However when the facts and applied thinking and reason upset you to the point of whining and complaining and bitching about everything and In a knee jerk fashion I don’t see how that is my problem. It seems to be yours.

So get a grip on yourself and try thinking and examining facts for a change.

I just stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue, but I have a problem when you milk it for emotional appeal, and you do so in a hypocritical double standard manner.


So, seriously, wtf are you talking about?


We CAN'T have a serious discussion, because you pepper all your posts with various types of bullshit.

 

[Correll]

And you just give them a pass for their choice

You are a liar. They get no pass from me. I’m only saying that W is responsible for outsider insurgents and telling them to bring the attacks against American Troops on.


** BUSH: Let me finish. There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ’em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.


Yeah! Right you did!

If you were sympathetic to him and wanted to put a positive, instead of negative spin on his words,

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.


But you are biased against him, the President of the United States, a "white, Christian, nationalist" as you so often put it,


while the outsider insurgents, are "brown, Muslim, and NOT nationalists", so they get a positive bias from you and you

don't hold them as "bloodthirsty" even though they did what you pretend upsets you, ie, choose an optional war, with the

attending collateral damage.

That is hypocrisy from you, and probably racism and anti-Christian bigotry. And a weird bigotry against nationalists, for some ideological reason.

Trump claimed that he was a Nationalist, but to be fair he probably doesn't know that that means. He's dumb as a GD stump.

Not is regularly pretending to be too retarded to understand simple concepts. YOu actually ARE too retarded to understands simple concepts. Go away loser.

 

[Correll]

The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.

Are you stupid like Correll. Go back and review what I wrote. You can read cant you? My point is clear. IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect. Iraq was domestically peaceful and was committing no acts of military aggression from at least November 2002 up to the minute that W started the war of aggression that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason. Those are facts abd nothing in your wall of words disputes those facts.

So you continue to be a liar.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.

He obviously was making the point that he disagreed with your opinion on that. He also supported it, with a supporting argument.

YOur flat unsupported assertion, comes across as retarded by comparison.


With all due respect.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.

Are you stupid like Correll. Go back and review what I wrote. You can read cant you? My point is clear. IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect. Iraq was domestically peaceful and was committing no acts of military aggression from at least November 2002 up to the minute that W started the war of aggression that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason. Those are facts abd nothing in your wall of words disputes those facts.

So you continue to be a liar.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.
Already took the trouble to do so above but apparently your ability to read and understand simple English really sucks.

IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect.
Untrue. A state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq from before the first U.S. invasion until the Iraqi surrender at the end of the second invasion. From my link:
In the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shīʿites in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated “no-fly” zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq’s failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century. (Continuing acts of war).

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush—seeking no further UN endorsement—issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war;...
When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.

It appears the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait held. So you really are a liar -a dumb liar but a liar just the same.
Cute. But entirely besides the point. The cease fire being discussed was the one between Iraq and the allied coalition.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres.

March 17, 2003

That’s the announcement date regarding the March 19 START date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched to put an end to the inspections that were successfully disarming Iraq peacefully.
You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact that the inspections were peaceful and Iraq was not at war with anybody. If Iraq were at war between November 2002 and March 17 2003 that has got to be one of the most peaceful wars in the history of mankind.



March 19, 2003

That’s the start date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.

And if the US and Iraq were already at war prior to March 19 2003 why did W Get an AUTHORIZATION from Congress in October 2002 to use military force against IRAQ.

Have you ever heard of an ongoing war where the president is not allowed to use military force in it? I haven’t. I’m pretty sure you’re a dumb ass if you think we were at war all that time.

 

[Correll]

you would realize that he was obviously trying to DISCOURAGE them from coming with a show of confidence.

I understand you must cheapen language to continue to sit high and mighty on your cultural Christian throne but come on get your nose out of W’s ass long enough to find out that language has meanings that you shouldn’t toss around and change to suit whatever pathetic argument you just dreamed up.

I take W’s ‘bring ‘em on comment’ to be a taunt - a stupid remark meant to anger or provoke an Iraqi even more who may have lost someone or something because of the invasion and would be looking around to hook up with other pissed off Muslim males thinking they need to take W up on his offer. And they did.

But the real point here is that W was not prepared to counter the catastrophe that would come when those opposed to the occupation decided to bring the insurgency on.

You support that failure crap and still kiss W’s ass. Must be tribal instinct to keep your lips wet for your leaders.

I made a serious point. All you did to support your dismissal, was cite the fact that I am a "cultural Christian" as though that is a reason for my words to be considered less than yours.


And of course, you reasserted your assumption.

Oh, and some personal ridicule such as "kiss W's ass".

All you have is assumptions and logical fallacies.


You are being an asshole. You are USING being an asshole, as a rhetorical device.


THat is not much to build a debating defense on.

 

[Correll]

The cease fire obviously did not end the war. Acts of war continued at intervals for years and was only ended by a second invasion.

Are you stupid like Correll. Go back and review what I wrote. You can read cant you? My point is clear. IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect. Iraq was domestically peaceful and was committing no acts of military aggression from at least November 2002 up to the minute that W started the war of aggression that killed half a million Iraqis for no reason. Those are facts abd nothing in your wall of words disputes those facts.

So you continue to be a liar.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.

Try honestly responding to my specific points. That might get you out of the liars box.
Already took the trouble to do so above but apparently your ability to read and understand simple English really sucks.

IRAQ no other nation was at war after 1441 went into effect.
Untrue. A state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq from before the first U.S. invasion until the Iraqi surrender at the end of the second invasion. From my link:
In the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat, Kurds in the north of the country and Shīʿites in the south rose in a rebellion that was suppressed by Saddam with great brutality. These actions prompted the allies to prohibit Iraqi aircraft from operating in designated “no-fly” zones over these areas. As the other allies gradually left the coalition, U.S. and British aircraft continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and UN inspectors sought to guarantee that all illicit weapons were destroyed. Iraq’s failure to cooperate with inspectors led in 1998 to a brief resumption of hostilities (Operation Desert Fox). Iraq thereafter refused to readmit inspectors into the country, and regular exchanges of fire between Iraqi forces and U.S. and British aircraft over the no-fly zones continued into the 21st century. (Continuing acts of war).

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres. George W. Bush—seeking no further UN endorsement—issued an ultimatum demanding that Saddam step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war;...
When Saddam refused to leave, U.S. and allied forces launched an attack on Iraq on March 20 and thus began what became known as the Iraq War.

It appears the ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait held. So you really are a liar -a dumb liar but a liar just the same.
Cute. But entirely besides the point. The cease fire being discussed was the one between Iraq and the allied coalition.

Well done.

 

[Correll]

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres.

March 17, 2003

That’s the announcement date regarding the March 19 START date of the war of aggression

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

to disarm Iraq that W launched to put an end to the inspections that were successfully disarming Iraq peacefully.

Logical fallacy of Beginning the question.

You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact

Absolute nonsense. Of course people can disagree with you.

that the inspections were peaceful

Absolute nonsense. Meaningless partisan pap. Filler to sound good, while saying nothing. The type of dishonest shit someone uses when they can't make a real point.

and Iraq was not at war with anybody.

Begging the question.

If Iraq were at war between November 2002 and March 17 2003 that has got to be one of the most peaceful wars in the history of mankind.

Logical fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. Lots of wars included periods of not active fighting. You have to know this. No one is as retarded as you are pretending to be.

March 19, 2003

That’s the start date of the war of aggression

Begging the question.

to disarm Iraq

Begging the question.

that W launched that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

Begging the question. Appeal to emotion. Partisan nonsense. Absolute asshole-ness.

There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. And complete nonsense. Of course people can disagree with you.

And if the US and Iraq were already at war prior to March 19 2003 why did W Get an AUTHORIZATION from Congress in October 2002 to use military force against IRAQ.

Logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. You ask the question as though there are not TONS of reasonable answers.

Have you ever heard of an ongoing war where the president is not allowed to use military force in it? I haven’t. I’m pretty sure you’re a dumb ass if you think we were at war all that time.

Logical fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. ANd retardedness. Politics often restrict a President's use of force in wartime.



Your arguments and positions are generally bullshit layered with different types of bullshit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Can you find any skirmishes with Iraq after November 2002? You are such a liar.
On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom, which had begun to mass troops on Iraq’s border, dispensed with further negotiations, and U.S. Pres.

March 17, 2003

That’s the announcement date regarding the March 19 START date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched to put an end to the inspections that were successfully disarming Iraq peacefully.
You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact that the inspections were peaceful and Iraq was not at war with anybody. If Iraq were at war between November 2002 and March 17 2003 that has got to be one of the most peaceful wars in the history of mankind.



March 19, 2003

That’s the start date of the war of aggression to disarm Iraq that W launched that caused the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.

And if the US and Iraq were already at war prior to March 19 2003 why did W Get an AUTHORIZATION from Congress in October 2002 to use military force against IRAQ.

Have you ever heard of an ongoing war where the president is not allowed to use military force in it? I haven’t. I’m pretty sure you’re a dumb ass if you think we were at war all that time.

You are a liar because you cannot deny the fact that the inspections were peaceful and Iraq was not at war with anybody.
You are the liar because I can, have and do deny exactly that. More importantly so does history. Can you not read?
The Iraq war-including both invasions-was the righteous result of Iraqi aggression.

There were no skirmishes in Iraq during the four months after 1441 was passed and prior to the US invasion. So you cannot refute what I said.
Wow! Four whole months? Unfortunately it is well recorded that every day of that time the US and UK were flying combat aircraft on combat missions in Iraqi airspace and that was clearly acts of war. It is also very expensive and was a daily expense being born by the American taxpayer year after year. After a decade or so it had become obvious that Saddam had no intention of honoring the promises he made to obtain a cease fire. He had to go. So we took him out and made the world a better place. We deserve credit for that. And I am pleased and proud of my Nation's actions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are the liar because I can, have and do deny exactly that.

Liar. Show me the post where you produced facts based evidence, a report, an eyewitness, anything that indicated that the inspections from November 2002 through March 17 2003. were marred by violence, bloodshed or war or fisticuffs or yelling or any bad behavior of any kind. You cannot deny the 1441 inspections were peaceful because they were in fact extremely peaceful.

What case have you made that the 1441 inspections were not peaceful?

You are pathetic. You cant lie and get away with saying you posted something that does not exist. It cannot exist because the entire world witnessed four and a half months of peaceful inspections until W forced them to cease so he could bring violence death and destruction into Iraq by starting a war to disarm Iraq of suspected WMD.

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

you are always about format.

The Bush Doctrine is aggressive is it not?

A military assault and invasion labeled Shock and AWE is aggressive is it not?

The Bush Doctrine does not need a certain or imminent threat. This makes W’s preventive war in Iraq absolutely indistinguishable from outright aggression does it not?

So why cant you reply by saying that the invasion of Iraq was not aggressive and here is why.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Liar. Show me the post where you produced facts based evidence, a report, an eyewitness, anything that indicated that the inspections from November 2002 through March 17 2003. were marred by violence, bloodshed or war or fisticuffs or yelling or any bad behavior of any kind. You cannot deny the 1441 inspections were peaceful because they were in fact extremely peaceful.

Better yet show me where I made any claim about 1441 inspection violence. I claimed we were at war with Iraq during that time period and we were as I showed. Any inspections made were not acceptable to prove Saddam was willing to abide by his cease fire promises that he had been given far more than reasonable time to fulfill. That failure resulted in the ultimatum that he must step down as head of government or be removed by force. Which he was.