Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Your game playing with semantics can't change reality.

Its not semantics. Nice try?

Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.

If you have an interest in world history you would be curious about the answer to that question.

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Instead of rationalizing against the historical record of what W’s words and actions actually were:

IMO it is obvious that the President finally decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable through inspection to verify an absence of WMB or long range missiles as he had pledged in the cease fire agreement.

THE WORLD including the USA was operating under 1441 when the Iraq War began.

The historical record has W going to the UN and getting 1441 passed in order to give SH a final opportunity to comply and avoid war.

The historical record has inspections resumed and SH cooperating for almost three months.

You opine that W “finally” decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable thorough inspection.

However W set the inspections in motion - the historical document was drawn - the inspections were started

Here is the critical Fact you will probably ignore.

W was ok with SH staying in power if the UNSC as a body determined Iraq was disarmed. Its in writing. Its through March 10. it’s in the historical record that W sees no risk of SH remaining in power if he was peacefully disarmed.

That means the entire evil of SH’s diabolical past was not a sufficient threat through March 10 for W to engage military force in regime change.

But then after MARCH 10 with no reversals of the continued cooperation with inspectors you say W finally decided the inspectors will never complete their mission / he was gonna git er done the AMERICAN WAY - military force.. DROP BOMBS Blitzkrieg from Kuwait to Baghdad. The troops will disarm Iraq

And we all know historically what a disaster that turned out to be.

 

[Correll]

Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.

How does W ‘sincerely’ think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong?

To start a war I’d expect a POTUS to demand solid irrevocable evidence from his or her sources on the location and existence of WMD stockpiles before committing troops to a ground invasion to take control of a Muslim Nation for the purpose of finding hidden stockpiles of WMD.

Your low tribal standard that W needed only to THINK that SH was hiding WMD to justify a war as long as his thinking was sincere is immoral unChrustian and dangerous.

I can understand why you as a cultural non-religious white Christian can look at our country engaging in a war of aggression against a Muslim nation can hold such a low standard for W’s reckless and nonchalant decision to start a war in Iraq. Its because the brunt of war’s death and destruction would hit a Muslim population the hardest. And that fact is low on your concern list when you want America to go around the world starting wars because it can.

I almost stopped reading at "and be entirely wrong", because that was such a monumentally stupid question, actually not even a real question, just a monumentally stupid accusation, thinly veiled as a question.

But, I'm glad I kept reading, as you expanded, we got to see a lot of our underlying assumptions that show what this is really about.

To you.


You are ASSUMING, that your opponents in this have a lower standard for the use of force, because of religious (and racial?) bigotry on their part.


That is an assumption that you have done nothing to support, BUT, you have used to make countless racial and religious smear against your "white Christian" enemies.


Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.

These are the words of a white Christian bigot saying it was ok for W to make a mistake that caused half a million Muslim Iraqis to die as long as the mistake was sincere.

“Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds,”

Its not ok. No president should be excused for such a gruesome mistake when making a decision about starting an offensive war of aggression against a nation that posed zero threat to peace and security at the time of the invasion.

And WMD was not W’s only mistake. His failure to heed warnings from experts and have a heavily fortified plan to deal with the aftermath of regime change in a Muslim nation with sectarian divides was not a sincere mistake either. His “greeted as liberators” preparation miscalculation was fundamentally the reason the death toll was so high and the war lasted so long and the prinary reason so many in uniform were killed and wounded too.

You are a White Christian bigot for trying to blame Muslims for W’s inexcusable white Christian mistakes..Your posts are the only proof of that we need. AND THE LYING is enough proof. Poking the Bear!!!

 

[Correll]

Support your assumption, or admit that you are the bigot.

These are the words of a white Christian bigot saying it was ok for W to make a mistake that caused half a million Muslim Iraqis to die as long as the mistake was sincere.

“Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds,”

Its not ok. No president should be excused for such a gruesome mistake when making a decision about starting an offensive war of aggression against a nation that posed zero threat to peace and security at the time of the invasion.

And WMD was not W’s only mistake. His failure to heed warnings from experts and have a heavily fortified plan to deal with the aftermath of regime change in a Muslim nation with sectarian divides was not a sincere mistake either. His greeted as liberators preparation miscalculation was fundamentally the reason the death toll was so high and lasted so long and the orinary reason so many in uniform were killed and wounded too.

You are a White Christian bigot for trying to blame Muslims for W’s inexcusable white Christian mistakes..

So, i ask you to support your assumption, Let's count your "supports".

1. You point out that I am white. Whoa.

2. You point out that I am Christian.

3. You call me a bigot.

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.

5. You make a point about how many died. Appeal to emotion.

6. You point out that they were muslim.

7. You assert it was "not ok".

8. You asserting it was a "gruesome mistake".

9. YOu asserting your opinion that it was a war of aggression.

10. You assert that Iraq posed "no threat to peace".

11. YOu assert your opinion that he should have planned for the insurgence

12. AND that that was not a sincere mistake, ie claiming he wanted additional fighting.

13. You assert that his liberation expectation was the reason for high casualties.

14. You point out that I am white, again.

15. You point out that I am Christian again.

16. You call me a name.

17. You point out that I blame "Muslims" for...

18. You assert that the President's mistake were "inexcusable".

19. YOu point out that the President was white.

20. You point out that the President was Christian.



MMmm, you said a lot.


What you did not do, was in anyway support your assumption that I or President Bush or anyone has a lower standard of prroof for a war, if the target is Muslim.


Indeed, looking at the points you DID make, you spend a lot of time just discussing OUR race and faith, as though that in itself is "proof" or a "support" that we are bigots.


You do realize that if that is what you are doing, you are the one being the bigot here, not me?


Do you want to try again, and this time actually support your assumption that we have a lower standard for proof, for war, if the target is Muslim?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Let's count your "supports".

1. You point out that I am white. Whoa.

you say you are.

2. You point out that I am Christian.

You say you are a cultural Christian

3. You call me a bigot.

based on your writing you are a bigot.

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.


I don’t allow Terrorists and insurgents off the hook. it would have been nice if the invading army was greeted as liberators. BUT they were not and it was a mistake to expect it. So the decision to invade unprepared are to blame for all the deaths and injuries the invasion caused.

He is. There were no hostilities from the Iraqi side when W started the invasion occupation and insurgency. Can you dispute that?

5. You make a point about how many died. Appeal to emotion.

They died. A massive amount of Iraqi death caused by W’s decisions provoked emotions. I do not apologize for telling truth that provoke emotions.

6. You point out that they were muslim.

They are. Why do you want it removed from public discussion about why they are now dead Muslims.

7. You assert it was "not ok".

It wasn’t. Why do you think it was considering how many died.

8. You asserting it was a "gruesome mistake".

It was.

9. YOu asserting your opinion that it was a war of aggression.

It was. it was not a response to a pending, immediate or imminent threat.

10. You assert that Iraq posed "no threat to peace".

It was to enforce a ten year old disarmament obligation that was being handled by the agency that bears responsibility at W’s request. It was an investigation that was forced to end prematurely.

11. YOu assert your opinion that he should have planned for the insurgence

he definitely should have because it was an offensive military operation not a rigorous response to an actionable threat.

12. AND that that was not a sincere mistake, ie claiming he wanted additional fighting.

I didn’t say W wanted additional fight. He should have anticipated worst case scenario and prepared for it - not best case scenario. Iraq’s oil will pay for it.

13. You assert that his liberation expectation was the reason for high casualties.

It was.

14. You point out that I am white, again.

you are arent you?

15. You point out that I am Christian again.

you are arent you?

16. You call me a name.

Poor thing.

17. You point out that I blame "Muslims" for...

You did.

18. You assert that the President's mistake were "inexcusable".

They are to thise who are not bigots

19. YOu point out that the President was white.

He is and a white Christian to boot.,

20. You point out that the President was Christian.

He is and a white Christian to boot who made disastrous mistakes when he decided to invade Iraq when it was extremely small threat to peace and security to the world if disarmed of WMD. W said so himself - Iraq with SH in power would be no threat to peace and security in the world if disarmed of WMD.

 

[Correll]

Let's count your "supports".

1. You point out that I am white. Whoa.

you say you are.

2. You point out that I am Christian.

You say you are a cultural Christian

3. You call me a bigot.

based on your writing you are a bigot.

4. You again, hold President Bush, fully responsible for ALL teh deaths, thus letting everyone else off the hook.


I don’t allow Terrorists and insurgents off the hook. it would have been nice if the invading army was greeted as liberators. BUT they were not and it was a mistake to expect it. So the decision to invade unprepared are to blame for all the deaths and injuries the invasion caused.

He is. There were no hostilities from the Iraqi side when W started the invasion occupation and insurgency. Can you dispute that?

5. You make a point about how many died. Appeal to emotion.

They died. A massive amount of Iraqi death caused by W’s decisions provoked emotions. I do not apologize for telling truth that provoke emotions.

6. You point out that they were muslim.

They are. Why do you want it removed from public discussion about why they are now dead Muslims.

7. You assert it was "not ok".

It wasn’t. Why do you think it was considering how many died.

8. You asserting it was a "gruesome mistake".

It was.

9. YOu asserting your opinion that it was a war of aggression.

It was. it was not a response to a pending, immediate or imminent threat.

10. You assert that Iraq posed "no threat to peace".

It was to enforce a ten year old disarmament obligation that was being handled by the agency that bears responsibility at W’s request. It was an investigation that was forced to end prematurely.

11. YOu assert your opinion that he should have planned for the insurgence

he definitely should have because it was an offensive military operation not a rigorous response to an actionable threat.

12. AND that that was not a sincere mistake, ie claiming he wanted additional fighting.

I didn’t say W wanted additional fight. He should have anticipated worst case scenario and prepared for it - not best case scenario. Iraq’s oil will pay for it.

13. You assert that his liberation expectation was the reason for high casualties.

It was.

14. You point out that I am white, again.

you are arent you?

15. You point out that I am Christian again.

you are arent you?

16. You call me a name.

Poor thing.

17. You point out that I blame "Muslims" for...

You did.

18. You assert that the President's mistake were "inexcusable".

They are to thise who are not bigots

19. YOu point out that the President was white.

He is and a white Christian to boot.,

20. You point out that the President was Christian.

He is and a white Christian to boot who made disastrous mistakes when he decided to invade Iraq when it was extremely small threat to peace and security to the world if disarmed of WMD. W said so himself - Iraq with SH in power would be no threat to peace and security in the world if disarmed of WMD.

The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.


Especially that bit when I point out that you called me a name and you pretended that I was just whining?

That was you, doing two things. One, dodging the point and Two, being a ****.


You have made an ASSUMPTION about us, and based quite a bit of your position on this issue and it seems, your world view on it, and based on your first attempt here,

it looks like you cannot support it at all.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Actual History:
Phttps://www.softschools.com/timelines/persian_gulf_war_timeline/246/ersian Gulf War Timeline
Timeline Description: The Persian Gulf War was a fight that went by many names such as Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and more. It was led by the United States against Iraq after Iraq invaded and captured Kuwait.


In 1990 Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait. This started the First Gulf War where US-led forces expelled Iraq and forced Iraq to come under UN restrictions regarding weapons and armaments. In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements, the United States invaded Iraq in what is called the Second Gulf War and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Read more at: https://www.ducksters.com/geography/country/iraq_history_timeline.php

Iraq Timeline

History of Iraq

www.infoplease.com

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Your game playing with semantics can't change reality. Its not semantics. Nice try? Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint. If you have an interest in world history you would be curious...

www.usmessageboard.com

1997	The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23). Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).
1998	Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13). UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokers a peaceful solution to the standoff. Over the next months Baghdad continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted (Feb. 23). Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31). Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15). The United States and Britain began four days of intensive air strikes, dubbed Operation Desert Fox. The attacks focused on command centers, missile factories, and airfields?targets that the Pentagon believed would damage Iraq's weapons stores (Dec. 16?19).
1999	Beginning in January, weekly, sometimes daily, bombings of Iraqi targets within the northern no-fly zone begin, carried out by U.S. and British bombers. More than 100 air strikes take place during 1999, and continue regularly over the next years. The U.S. and Britain hope the constant barrage of air strikes will weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq (Jan. 1999?present).

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.

Its not an assumption. Its based on what you say. You trued to lie that SH was not cooperating with inspectors just before the invasion because you are a white religious bigot who obviously thinks you can lie and spread propaganda about Muslims and no one will notice. I notice these things.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements,

Your source is a liar.

Iraq was complying with the most recent agreement 1441.

The US quit complying with 1441 when it invaded Iraq instead of disarming Iraq peacefully.

 

[Correll]

The point is, that NONE of that supports your ASSUMPTION that we, (on the other side of this issue from you), have a lower standard of proof for Muslims for war.

Its not an assumption. Its based on what you say. You trued to lie that SH was not cooperating with inspectors just before the invasion because you are a white religious bigot who obviously thinks you can lie and spread propaganda about Muslims and no one will notice. I notice these things.

Blah, blah, blah, white, got it.

Now, to support your assumption, now contrast that to a time when the question was, war with a WHITE and/or CHRISTIAN nation, the closer to the present the better of course.

 

[9thIDdoc]

In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements,

Your source is a liar.

Iraq was complying with the most recent agreement 1441.

The US quit complying with 1441 when it invaded Iraq instead of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Sez who? We invaded Iraq that 2nd time to remove Saddam from power after he refused the ultimatum to step down. Any compliance with 1441 was no longer relevant. The US had decided that he had been given enough time and chances to comply. It was the US, not the UN, who had lead the fight against Saddam and declared the cease fire that Saddam broke. It was the US that paid the lion's share of the cost of the continuing war or "containment" if you prefer that term. Not the UN. The American taxpayer continued for 10 Years to pay though the nose to protect the world from Saddam with the rest of the world contributing little. Meanwhile Saddam pretended to the UN that he did not have WMD while simultaneously pretending to others that he did in hopes of avoiding deserved attacks. The UN's actions and lack thereof during this and following time periods has caused many US citizens to hope for a withdrawal from the UN. I am one of them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We invaded Iraq that 2nd time

We didn’t invade to occupy Iraq the first time. We were part of a UN coalition the first time to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

SH initiated the first war because he invaded Kuwait. W initiated the second war in order to invade Iraq.

They are two separate wars. You are a fool to link the two. There were skirmishes in between but by 2002 the aggressor nations that were a threat to peace in the Persuan Gulf Region were the UK and US.

In 2003 SH did all he could to stop war. W lied all he could to start war. Even Trump knows that Bush lied.


Some insight on Tony Blair’s role in ramping up for war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein may have been a loathsome dictator, but he was not a threat to the United States. He possessed no weapons of mass destruction and had no role in 9/11. The argument that the Iraq invasion was a necessary "Phase Two" in the "War on Terror" is laughable. The invasion of Iraq was a reckless war of choice made by belligerent policymakers with imperialistic personalities and opaque motives.

Blair attempted to slow Bush's rush to invade. He preached caution about regime change and urged that the focus be on disarming Saddam. He urged delay so that the weapons inspectors could do their work. He advised Bush to work through the United Nations and build support internationally, and he recommended that more time be devoted to planning for post-invasion challenges.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

What is most disconcerting for an American about the Chilcot report is not the advice of Blair, but the actions of Bush. The report makes clear that Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what allies advised, no matter what the international community thought, no matter what the weapons inspectors found, no matter that there was "no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with the attacks on the U.S. or active links to Al Qaeda," and no matter what ambiguities were contained in the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. This was rash bellicosity, and no one has been held to account for it.

William S. Smith is managing director and a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University of America.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

now contrast that to a time when the question was, war with a WHITE and/or CHRISTIAN nation,

Iraq was the Bush Doctrine’s first and only shot. It was tested only on a Muslim Nation.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We invaded Iraq that 2nd time

We didn’t invade to occupy Iraq the first time. We were part of a UN coalition the first time to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

SH initiated the first war because he invaded Kuwait. W initiated the second war in order to invade Iraq.

They are two separate wars. You are a fool to link the two. There were skirmishes in between but by 2002 the aggressor nations that were a threat to peace in the Persuan Gulf Region were the UK and US.

In 2003 SH did all he could to stop war. W lied all he could to start war. Even Trump knows that Bush lied.


Some insight on Tony Blair’s role in ramping up for war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein may have been a loathsome dictator, but he was not a threat to the United States. He possessed no weapons of mass destruction and had no role in 9/11. The argument that the Iraq invasion was a necessary "Phase Two" in the "War on Terror" is laughable. The invasion of Iraq was a reckless war of choice made by belligerent policymakers with imperialistic personalities and opaque motives.

Blair attempted to slow Bush's rush to invade. He preached caution about regime change and urged that the focus be on disarming Saddam. He urged delay so that the weapons inspectors could do their work. He advised Bush to work through the United Nations and build support internationally, and he recommended that more time be devoted to planning for post-invasion challenges.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

What is most disconcerting for an American about the Chilcot report is not the advice of Blair, but the actions of Bush. The report makes clear that Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what allies advised, no matter what the international community thought, no matter what the weapons inspectors found, no matter that there was "no evidence of any Iraqi involvement with the attacks on the U.S. or active links to Al Qaeda," and no matter what ambiguities were contained in the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. This was rash bellicosity, and no one has been held to account for it.

William S. Smith is managing director and a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University of America.

From your link:
BY WILLIAM S. SMITH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/20/18 07:00 AM EDT 102
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion. Didn't fly before; won't fly now. Get over your whining about American leaders and foreign policy. America and our leaders has been a far greater friend to the Iraqi people than their dictator ever thought about being.

 

[surada]

In 2003, when Iraq refused to comply to earlier agreements,

Your source is a liar.

Iraq was complying with the most recent agreement 1441.

The US quit complying with 1441 when it invaded Iraq instead of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Sez who? We invaded Iraq that 2nd time to remove Saddam from power after he refused the ultimatum to step down. Any compliance with 1441 was no longer relevant. The US had decided that he had been given enough time and chances to comply. It was the US, not the UN, who had lead the fight against Saddam and declared the cease fire that Saddam broke. It was the US that paid the lion's share of the cost of the continuing war or "containment" if you prefer that term. Not the UN. The American taxpayer continued for 10 Years to pay though the nose to protect the world from Saddam with the rest of the world contributing little. Meanwhile Saddam pretended to the UN that he did not have WMD while simultaneously pretending to others that he did in hopes of avoiding deserved attacks. The UN's actions and lack thereof during this and following time periods has caused many US citizens to hope for a withdrawal from the UN. I am one of them.

No you didn't pay.. The Saudis paid a milion dollars a day for 10 years.. and they didn't demand Saddam step down.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion.

What historical facts from Mr Smith are you having a problem with. Everything he said about Tony Blair etc was based on historical fact. You on the other hand want to change the history of two separate wars into one continuous war so you don’t have to admit that a white Christian Bush started the 2003 through 2011 war and was the aggressor and is responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

In other words you have motive to lie about the facts if the war and Mr Smith does not because he is honest about the unnecessary slaughter of so many human souls for no reason.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Once again you attempted to counter recorded and accepted historical fact with wild-ass idiotic personal opinion.

What historical facts from Mr Smith are you having a problem with. Everything he said about Tony Blair etc was based on historical fact. You on the other hand want to change the history of two separate wars into one continuous war so you don’t have to admit that a white Christian Bush started the 2003 through 2011 war and was the aggressor and is responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqis.

In other words you have motive to lie about the facts if the war and Mr Smith does not because he is honest about the unnecessary slaughter of so many human souls for no reason.

Great. Now you think someone might be interested in your opinion of Smith's opinion which was clearly labeled as such:
BY WILLIAM S. SMITH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/20/18 07:00 AM EDT 102
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

If you wanted to discuss historical fact you would actually present some but you don't and simply deny and ignore any that are presented. You are here to peddle propaganda and conspiracy theories.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum.

Why did you lie? SH did not ignore the UNSC Resolution 1441 ultimatum to cooperate. That’s an outright bold faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything you put out there about Iraq?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum.

Why did you lie? SH did not ignore the UNSC Resolution 1441 ultimatum to cooperate. That’s an outright bold faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything you put out there about Iraq?

Prove it.

 

[surada]

Iraq failed to abide by the cease fire agreement although given chance after chance to do so over a ten year period and then ignored a UN ultimatum.

Why did you lie? SH did not ignore the UNSC Resolution 1441 ultimatum to cooperate. That’s an outright bold faced lie. Why should anyone believe anything you put out there about Iraq?

Prove it.

The adoption of Resolution 1441 and Iraq’s subsequent decision to admit UN inspectors provided an opportunity to resolve reasonable concerns about Iraq’s suspected WMD programs. It now is known that Hussein ordered his military to comply with the inspections.
Looking Back: Iraq: Disarmament Without Resolution | Arms ...
www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-01/looking-back-iraq-disarmament-without-resolution