Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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.

Ok, so the process to continue. Got it.


What else? Do you imagine Saddam managing a peaceful transfer of power to one of his sons? Or did you hope that the Arab Spring would sweep him from power? Or that he at least would not attack any of his neighbors again?

 

[Correll]

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.

Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.


I read your above post. It seemed to be nothing but spin.


What do you imagine the point of the above post was? Try saying it in two sentences, without any spin to bury the point.

If there is a point at all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.

You are not disagreeing with me, you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.

What you say means nothing because it is not backed by an explanation as to why you ‘believe’ SH was not cooperating - all you got us that you believe it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You don't want to admit that your enemies had a valid goal.

I know from what you have written here that it is a fact that you Correll YOU did not have a valid, legitimate, reasonable or moral self defense goal and you did not have a goal to end genocide or potential genocide in Iraq.

You supported the potential to kill innocent human beings as you say in order to conduct an experiment that might erase your mostly unfounded and hyped up fear of Islamic linked terrorism.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.

That is a weak defense of why you still support the killing of half a million Iraqis to conduct an experiment in a Muslim country.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Try saying it in two sentences, without any spin to bury the point.

The two sentences were there.

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

We the public had plenty of opportunities to see that Iraq did in fact let the inspectors back in and the inspections were working toward their intended purpose of establishing that Iraq was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What else?

I would have hoped that we investigate why the White House warmonger hype and Intel was so wrong. Find out if the intel was was wrong by the agencies or if the policy makers abused it.,

 

[the other mike]

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.

www.msnbc.com

Not to simplify it too much, but Washington DC Democrats and Republicans have pulled the wool over our eyes for decades with their good cop bad cop games.....( you guys screw up the Healthcare System and we'll take the heat for all these wars.... and in 10 years we'll switch roles and those idiots will never know the difference ) what a closed-door meeting between them would sound like.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN, and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking, or what we might consider as we make our next step.

I never said the UN paperwork limits US actions or thinking. You are a liar..

I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,

Sure you did. I

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

You have not posted where you think I said it. You are certainly a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll do you understand what the phrase …. “ a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” …… used in the paragraphs below means?

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 them 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;


If you do understand the concept why are you suffering a hissyfit about not mentioning the historical fact that SH invaded Kuwait in 1990.,

it did not matter to W since he agreed to giving SH a final opportunity to comply and that means W did not consider the Kuwait invasion to be a reason to remove SH from power.

I want to get more fact denial from you so let it rip..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

Yeah, like I said, we disagreed with you.

Why do you Correll , a warmonger, disagree with the easily observable at the time reality that SH was outwardly cooperating with UN Inspections during the months prior to the start of the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe attack on Iraq in March 2003?

Why should any war be started by our side based on the false beliefs of warmongers?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Your example is not technically correct. Every single armed NAZI fighting on the ground outside of Germany’s borders in September 1944 was a continuation of the invasion of the country they were in.

Germany was invading every single country they were in when we bombed them and pushed them all back to Germany.

Iraq had no armed soldiers engaged in armed conflict outside of Iraq’s borders in 2003.

That’s another diversion from the facts by cheapening language and very stupid of you to do it. You should be ashamed of yourself for desparately deploying such absurd and farcical antics

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is

How many children in Texas need to die before you agree to send in the US military to save them from the governor who opposes protecting them from a virus that has morphed into one that now kills children?


*** As the highly contagious Delta variant continues to spread, many hospitals are reporting record numbers of children being hospitalized, especially in areas with low vaccination rates, including Arkansas, Florida, Missouri and Texas.

Houston doctor: Greg Abbott is a 'direct threat' to the children of Texas

As the highly contagious Delta variant continues to spread, many hospitals are reporting record numbers of children being hospitalized, especially in areas with low vaccination rates, including Arkansas, Florida, Missouri and Texas. Dr. Christina Propst, a pediatrician in Houston, says children...

www.rawstory.com

*** Dr. Christina Propst, a pediatrician in Houston, says children under 12 who are still ineligible for COVID-19 vaccines are at risk. "They are currently our most vulnerable population, just as this highly transmissible variant is surging across the country," Propst says. She says Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order banning mask mandates in schools is a purely political decision that ignores science. "What he is doing is a direct threat to the health and well-being of the children of Texas," says Propst.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I found his reasoning to be compelling.

compelling enough to start a war that killed half a million Iraqis but no longer compelling to you after the start when Gingrich, an architect for the war, objected to the means and methods of the war and occupation that the Decider chose.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.

The point being discussed, NOW, is your assumption that supporting war as a policy means some type of belief that my life has more intrinsic value that Iraqi lives.

As you watched Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe unfold on tv were you in harms way of all those explosions from the start. You said you hoped casualties to innocent civilians would be low. But you knew innocent lives would be taken in the preemptive war you say you support.

Their lives, those to be killed as collateral damage, had no value to you. They were not involved in any action to harm you and they took no action that could kill you but you were taking action to kill them safely from your couch thousands of miles from the explosions all safe and sound.

How can you be so asinine to claim to support the massive bombing of Baghdad but in the next breath that the lives of anyone killed in the US assault are equal in value to yours?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cheney wanted an invasion, Biden supported Clinton in his policy of regime change though out his administrations.

SUPPORTING Iraqis to enact a regime regime change internally is not supporting a ground invasion by US and occupation to conduct an experiment.

You will always be an idiot on Iraq because you reject the facts and reality about Iraq in post after post.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Struth is technically right, WMDs, were found. His OPINION on the matter, is valid and is justified.

Struth is a liar.

Yes, it is true that the ancient shells were found and they may be called WMD. That is not Struth’s lie. His lie is when he says the WMD that W started a war to look for were found. When he says that, he is a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war” - you are a liar

show me

You are hereby shown that you are a liar..

SH was not hiding WMD from UN inspectors after 1441. @struth claims SH was hiding WND because the invading army found them.

Xiden's liberating military found them U.S. Intelligence Documents on Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq

I didn't post a NY TImes link. I posted a document from the Govt. which highlights stockpiles of WMDs were found that Saddam was hiding

The weapons were not one ones that the Bush Administration erroneously claimed Saddam Hussein was producing in violation of U.N. sanctions. Some of them were designed in America and sold to Iraq for use in the Iran-Iraq War, a conflict that left hundreds of thousands dead between 1980 and 1988.

the justification. for war is outlined in Xiden authorization. law...there are a number of reasons.

and yes WMDs were found as a i stated...and what was reported

he certainly expected to find more

the UN said he was in violation...heck we found WMDs he was hiding

all i know is we found some that saddam was hiding

they found WMDs. I don’t think Bush have them specific WMDs too look for.

It’s just further proof that your old boss Saddam was in violation of the UN

And what was the significance of the junkyard WMDs they found?

that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN

see all the above Correll. Your fellow warmongering fool is lying when he claims SH was hiding WMD in violation of 1441.

But the point is had the invasion not been launched and the inspection and long term monitoring process continued to your dismay that peace was being sustained, it is a fact that some of our troops would not have been exposed to those ancient shells.

Ok, so the process to continue.

What is wrong with not getting half a million Iraqis killed in order to determine that Iraq did not in fact possess and conceal the most lethal weapons ever devised?

What is wrong with letting the world’s experts safely destroy the ancient shells.

I have a niece who married a healthy at the time young man who had cancer served as a medic in Iraq and had exposure to the burn pits. Within five years he died a horrible death from several cancers that came out of nowhere. He left my niece and a young daughter behind.

Can’t prove it but we believe there is a connection as there are others who have gotten sick and died after serving in W’s mistake.,

Three measly months of inspections may have changed history fir the better and my nephew in law would live to see his daughter graduate from high school and college and all that..

What would have been so bad had W allowed the process to continue if you value human life the way you claim you do?

 

[surada]

Ok, so the process to continue. Got it.


What else? Do you imagine Saddam managing a peaceful transfer of power to one of his sons? Or did you hope that the Arab Spring would sweep him from power? Or that he at least would not attack any of his neighbors again?

Arab Spring???? You mean sweep Saddam away 10 years later?

Saddam didn't attack any of his neighbors. They weren't stealing Iraqi oil and had forgiven his OPEC quota debt.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq and would NOT forgive the OPEC debt.

BTW, why didn't you get it when Bush claimed that Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth from Sudan to Syria?

 

[struth]

You are hereby shown that you are a liar..
























see all the above Correll. Your fellow warmongering fool is lying when he claims SH was hiding WMD in violation of 1441.

But the point is had the invasion not been launched and the inspection and long term monitoring process continued to your dismay that peace was being sustained, it is a fact that some of our troops would not have been exposed to those ancient shells.



What is wrong with not getting half a million Iraqis killed in order to determine that Iraq did not in fact possess and conceal the most lethal weapons ever devised?

What is wrong with letting the world’s experts safely destroy the ancient shells.

I have a niece who married a healthy at the time young man who had cancer served as a medic in Iraq and had exposure to the burn pits. Within five years he died a horrible death from several cancers that came out of nowhere. He left my niece and a young daughter behind.

Can’t prove it but we believe there is a connection as there are others who have gotten sick and died after serving in W’s mistake.,

Three measly months of inspections may have changed history fir the better and my nephew in law would live to see his daughter graduate from high school and college and all that..

What would have been so bad had W allowed the process to continue if you value human life the way you claim you do?

um none of your links prove i’m a liar. The justification used, as i have highlighted was in xiden’s Authorization for Use of Miltary Force