Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith

Just to be certain. You are saying you think W is a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith.

If you were intelligent you would only think that W really had before his eyes an intelligence report from which he announced to the world that the doubtless fact was that SH was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors.

*** “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

And it really myst be intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are infested with Kirsten

that was supposed to be infested with “lying.”

 

[NotfooledbyW]

US policy in March 2003 was operating along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution took into account every single dastardly thing that Saddam Hussein had done since 1990 Including the invasion of Kuwait.

That the resolution took any of it into account, does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more.

I did not say or infer or suggest that ‘because the resolution took SH’s bad behaviors into account, it does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more.’

Sure you did. I brought up context and you said, that was considered in the crafting of the resolution, so you don't get to.... consider it more, or something like that.

You will not find me saying “so you don't get to.... consider it more” or something like that.

You are a liar becoming more and more detached from reality every time you post.

This is what I said that I believed triggered your hallucinations. It came with an explanation as to why SH’s history did not matter to the end of disarming Iraq in March 2003 under the condition that SH would remain in power you stupid Fhead.

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.

It was a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY despite all his bad behavior for his entire life. That explicitly saying this is the deal in the context of all your bad and evil ways prior to this situation and thus resolution.

That ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY‘ became official Iraq invasion and war or peace POLICY for five months preceding the actual start of the invasion

So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.

It was the complete opposite of s demand to ignore context.

Your ignorance and dimwittedness is very frustrating.

I’m just posting these in order to try to follow what triggers exist that cause you to hallucinate and lose track of reality.

The plan was to invade, "be greeted as liberators" and do some limited nation building and have them exist as a strong alternative to Islamic Fundamentalism.

THe point about focusing on one instance and ignoring context though, is still valid, and you can't refute it,

And then only was Iraq not inviting anybody in March 2003 they were not occupying any land territory outside of their borders.

There was nothing misleading at all about a statement that the Iraq was not invading any other nation in March 2003.

It is misleading. YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanshi

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOu are leaving out ALL the context of decades of war adn brinksmanship.

You have the worst grasp of context of anybody on this forum. 1441 did not leave that out. W’s people drafted it FFS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So Correll please read the following and then report back to the readers specifically what ‘context’ you feel that W left out when his people drafted what is known as UNSC 1441.

The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy2

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I hoped for a lot of things as i laid out. I at first hoped that Vice President Dick Cheney was correct that we would be greeted as liberators and the war would be short and the occupation would be easy.

And then what?

Reality set in. A self induced quagmire and money pit was born. Cheney was wrong. We were not greeted as liberators and W had no plan and sent insufficient forces to preserve and maintain order and basic civic and government functions in his hasty attack on Iraq in March 2003.

W caused so much violence death destruction and chaos in Iraq its hard to say what to hope for except hoping the violence there will some day end..

its so disgusting that my government had a role in it.

Here is Iraq this year:

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report also warned that the ongoing impunity would likely prevent Iraqis from voting in the upcoming elections.

“If the authorities are not able to take urgent steps to stop these extrajudicial killings, the palpable climate of fear they have created will severely limit the ability of Iraqis who have been calling for change to participate in upcoming parliamentary elections,” wrote HRW’s senior researcher Belkis Wille.

“The boycott is a peaceful way to say that as long as there are armed militias connected to the [political] parties and who kill the opposition, we cannot say it’s a legitimate process,” said 34-year-old protester Deena al-Tai.
“As long as armed groups have power, we won’t participate.”

Despite the ongoing killings and the exodus of activists to the safer, Kurdish-run north, the protest movement has not waned, said Munqith Dagher, a senior non-resident researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

“The soul of the movement is still there and it is developing and the attack by the system to stop it and demonise it has failed,” Dagher told Al Jazeera.
Following the violence on Tuesday evening, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq said in a tweet: “Only accountability will stop the pattern of deadly attacks targeting civic and political activists. While the perpetrators may think they have silenced voices, they have only amplified them. Accountability is key for Iraq’s stability. The Iraqi people have a right to know”.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

ACCOUNTABILITY. I had hoped we’d have that here.

And on January 6 it is of concern that instead of Iraq becoming more like America - America is becoming more like IRAQ.

 

[Correll]

Then post it where you think I said it. I said nothing of the sort. You are a liar.


Half a million Iraqis would not be dead if US actions were limited by the UN in March 2003.

Did you seriously misunderstand me, and think that I was literally saying that somehow the UN physically prevented US actions?

Especially since I clearly stated "thinking or actions" AND, it was in the context of YOU claiming that that was what SHOULD have happened in your opinion, and US obviously actually invading?


Because as I see it, there are two possibilities here.


One, is that you were operating under decreased brain function from something, ie perhaps you were drunk when you posted that?


Two, you know that I made a valid point, and instead of having the balls to admit it, you are just talking shit.


Which is it? And I want a real fucking answer. No rambling whining or drama queen shit. A FUCKING ANSWER.

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I did not discount anything by stating a fact that Iraq was not the invading nation in March 2003. The USA was the only country invading another country in March 2003. That is a fact.

Sure you are. You are focusing on our actions without the context of why we were doing it.


Just like my example of bombing Germany. During a time when they were not invading anyone.


Do you think that if you try a stupid trick over and over again, that at some point I will let it pass?


Does that normally work for you?

 

[Correll]

This ain’t about that. SH was a rotten no good human being. There is no disagreement on that fact.

I’m saying OffIcial US POLICY during five months ramp up to war was working with the UN and according to UNSC 1441 and in that framework it did not matter the type of person that SH was. That included his decision to invade Kuwait in 1990.

That is a fact.

Ok, so your point is, that our actions indicate that we were not holding to our official policy of working with the UN?


ok.


1. So what?

2. What was the rest of that shit about? Was that just more spam bot-ing?

 

[Correll]

You are infested with Kirsten

I never said SH was not a dangerous warmonger. You are a liar.

SH was a dangerous warmonger in 2002 to be made less dangerous when left in power without WMD. That was W’s US Policy from September 2002 through March 17 2003.

And plenty of people, including the President and I, and large portions of the country, believed that it was NOT being successfully done.


We covered that. You are talking in circles. Do you have anything new to say? It seems that you do have something you have not said, but you get distracted by something, and don't actually say it.


Come on. What is your point? What about this is supposed to be so important to you? LOOK INSIDE AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE.

 

[Correll]

WTF? Of course there is no requirement in 1441 that the US stop thinking….

The US drafted 1441. it was US policy in writing.

So, why did you dispute me even mentioning it?

 

[Correll]

I never talked about reasons to ignore context. You are a liar.

If that was not your intent, then you did it wrong. Because that was ALL I got from it.

 

[Correll]

Just to be certain. You are saying you think W is a liar.

Diplomacy is not always about being completely honest. NO President or Prime Minister is completely honest. If they were, they would not be allowed in the job, because they would be unable to even come close to doing the job.


How many times do leaders have to work with people that they have nothing but contempt for?


Like when Lincoln was willing to work with the Slave owning south, to avoid a Civil War. He was obviously being diplomatic, because if he said what he really felt, he would be condemning hundreds of thousands of people to certain death.


NOw, those people died anyways. BUT, his attempt at diplomacy was still the right thing for him to TRY.


Technically, he was LYING, when he said many of those things. But I support that kind of lying.


So do you.


You just are willing to pretend otherwise, so that you can smear and attack your enemies, ie President Bush and his supporters.


The Truth, is not your goal. Spreading hate and division is.

 

[Correll]

If you were intelligent you would only think that W really had before his eyes an intelligence report from which he announced to the world that the doubtless fact was that SH was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors.

*** “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

And it really myst be intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors.

You don't sound like you believe that. Nor do I think you really care.

Do you understand that people make mistakes?

Do you understand HOW people make mistakes?

 

[Correll]

It was a ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY despite all his bad behavior for his entire life. That explicitly saying this is the deal in the context of all your bad and evil ways prior to this situation and thus resolution.

That ‘FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY‘ became official Iraq invasion and war or peace POLICY for five months preceding the actual start of the invasion

And we, your enemies, did not believe that he had done that. So, why are we back to this?

 

[Correll]

Reality set in

You seem unable to discuss what you hope would happen.

I think I understand why. You don't want to admit that your enemies had a valid goal.

You want to focus on the negatives, ie the cost of the war, and harp on various traits of your enemies, like us being white or Christian or Nationalists, so that you can smear those groups as a whole(s).



Ask me what I feared would happen if we did NOT invade.

(it's funny I have to prompt you to do that. One would think that you would have been curious about that, yourself)

 

[Correll]

NotfooledbyW

Not, what did you HOPE would happen, if the invasion did NOT happen?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not, what did you HOPE would happen, if the invasion did NOT happen?

IF the invasion did not happen on March 19 I hoped Biden/W UN Policy would continue and the Cheney FUCK THE UN policy continued to be sidelined.

I hoped that with continued cooperation by Iraq and all nations the truth about the non-existence of WMD is accepted on or before September 2003 because the peaceful inspections were allowed to continue.

I hoped the long term monitoring as required in all the UN resolutions was set up and long term WMD monitoring went into effect.

I hoped Blix and Al Baradai upon completion of the inspections phase would direct the UNSC to lift the sanctions on IRAQ and sanctions were ended.

That is what I hoped.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And we, your enemies, did not believe that he had done that.

The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality.

We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working. Those who contend the inspections were not working are and were liars and warmongering propagandists.

That is why Dubya had to say :

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

*** But Mr Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.

George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack

Former US President George W Bush says he still has a "sickening feeling" because no WMDs were found in Iraq, in memoirs due to appear next week.

www.google.com

*** "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

W had to divert the public from seeing the observable “cooperation”to a matter of secret intelligence limited to very few eyes.

When Dubya said he had Intelligence that left for him no doubt that the Iraq regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the inspectors it meant that the observable cooperation that billions in the world saw was not true.

But stop with the flat earth bullshit belief that you did not see the inspections working until MARCH 17 when Dubya told you had his top secret information that was not really cooperating.