Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

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

The “why” that you say you were supporting W’s actions was not tied to the context of a threat from Iraq. Your context as you say was tied to enacting an experiment in using massive military force to impose liberty on people who were not interested in having liberty imposed on them by an invading army from a predominantly Christian military superpower.

W did not do it right because he lacked troop strength in numbers, and was not generally prepared to not be greeted as liberators, and went in with the misconception that Iraq’s oil would pay for reconstruction.

Diplomacy is not always about being completely honest.

Coming from a documented liar that’s too funny to let slide.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

um none of your links prove i’m a liar.

Your lie has nothing to do with Biden.

W does not consider what was found to be what he considered being “hidden” when he decided he needed to start a war..

Your lie is not that something was found that was very much WMD-like ….. Your lie is that you are saying that what was found is what W said was being hidden. According to W no WMD was ever found that proves SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors in March 2003.

So you are a liar when you say our troops found “hidden” WMD instead of saying our troops found some ancient WMD that was not related to anything to do with W’s decision to start a war.

Did you post a claim that the invading army found WMD that was being hidden and therefore finding hidden WMD proved that Iraq was violating.

I asked you directly….

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

And your immediate response was a lie…..

that saddam had wasn’t complying with the UN

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i never said they were the “WMD that was used to justify the war”

You said exactly that in direct response to my question:

You said the US military found them.

sure that was certainly a justification.

You say the ancient shells that the US Military ‘found’ was certainly a justification.

I hope Correll can see that you are not being technically correct which means you are a liar. And then you lied that you never said it.

 

[struth]

Your lie has nothing to do with Biden.

W does not consider what was found to be what he considered being “hidden” when he decided he needed to start a war..

Your lie is not that something was found that was very much WMD-like ….. Your lie is that you are saying that what was found is what W said was being hidden. According to W no WMD was ever found that proves SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors in March 2003.

So you are a liar when you say our troops found “hidden” WMD instead of saying our troops found some ancient WMD that was not related to anything to do with W’s decision to start a war.

Did you post a claim that the invading army found WMD that was being hidden and therefore finding hidden WMD proved that Iraq was violating.

I asked you directly….

And your immediate response was a lie…..

huh? what was the lie? the reasons we went to iraq were outlined in Xiden use of force

yes saddam wasn’t comply…the hidden WMDs alone prove that

 

[struth]

You said exactly that in direct response to my question:





You say the ancient shells that the US Military ‘found’ was certainly a justification.

I hope Correll can see that you are not being technically correct which means you are a liar. And then you lied that you never said it.

yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…

Yes you were spreading one of the BIG lies that came out after the invasion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed

Thats another lie specifically with regard to Biden. Unlike Correll I will explain exactly why and back it up with the facts.

ANY Reasons other than WMD in SH’s slimy hands were not due cause for Biden to agree to start the war when W did by cutting off inspections.

#1 Biden wanted UNSC support - including a second Resolution. He knew the UNSC would only back a war based on solid proof that SH was hiding WMD or quit cooperating.

#2 Biden wanted to give the Inspectors the extra three months in order to be certain about the evidence that W was presenting.

If Biden wanted to invade Iraq because he agreed with Correll that it was right to conduct an experiment in nation building a Muslim country he would not have cared that W got the evidence on WMD to be as solid as gold by holding off the attack a few months.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

if he wasn’t hiding them...why were they hidden??

When it’s thrown on a junkpile waiting to be destroyed it’s no way being hidden.

These were not hidden. You are a liar.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are trying to over simply a complex issue.

Nothing complicated about it. The facts were established at the time. Facts don’t change with you political fancies.

U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

The ancient shells were not part of an active chemical weapons program. struth is not correct claiming they became proof after the invasion that SH viokated 1441. And you defend struth ‘s lie and warmongering propaganda.

 

[struth]

Nothing complicated about it. The facts were established at the time. Facts don’t change with you political fancies.



The ancient shells were not part of an active chemical weapons program. struth is not correct claiming they became proof after the invasion that SH viokated 1441. And you defend struth ‘s lie and warmongering propaganda.

of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over. he didn’t

 

[surada]

yeah…they weren’t the specific ones…there were a number of reasons as Xiden outlined in the use of force he passed

Specifically he said OK if they waited to see if there were WMDs and there was no other path.

Didn't you KNOW when those clowns claimed Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria that they were lying out their asses?

 

[struth]

Specifically he said OK if they waited to see if there were WMDs and there was no other path.

Didn't you KNOW when those clowns claimed Saddam was trucking his WMDs back and forth between Sudan and Syria that they were lying out their asses?

no he specifically said, the president is authorized to use force as he deems necessary. Read the law he voted for

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Was the ceasefire agreement made with you?

Yes. Obviously by context.

So you are either the ghost of Saddam Hussein or the United Nations Security Council. Which one?

of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over. he didn’t

 

[NotfooledbyW]

of course it’s proof he was suppose to turn all that over. he didn’t

You have no standing to claim that it was proof.


Have you read what I posted before?

***U.N. destroying mustard gas shells Wednesday, February 12, 2003 Posted: 10:02 AM EST (1502 GMT)The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Why do you keep lying about that? Is that some sort of some sort of Trump cult entitlement?

Do you know what “expected to be there” means?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

no he specifically said, the president is authorized to use force as he deems necessary.

You are a liar.

Its not “deems necessary”

The AUMF says the president is authorized to use force as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

determines to be necessary is a future decision on timing and how

Biden said in Senate hearings before the invasion that there was no risk to wait to invade in the fall to avoid hot weather, and to shore up the coalition and to be certain that the WMD evidence with solid.

Therefore as my arguments come with explanations and facts, Biden did not agree as you say that W could just willy-nilly do whatever the hell he wanted with regard to invading Iraq. Biden warned W of the pitfalls of invading without UN support. Therefore Biden was correct to hold the position that W’s date and thin coalition was not necessary or appropriate.


(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

Biden said don’t do it without the United Nations Security Council second resolution and don’t do it in March. Let the inspectors finish the job.

It’s clear you are a liar and you’re addicted to lying and you can’t quit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Thus, we see that you

supported all the bloody oppression that Saddam would have done, if he remained in power.

The warmongering white cultural Christian Trump supporter who continues to support the needless ACTUAL killing of half a million innocent Iraqis now tries to justify the real disaster by fantasizing what would have happened if he did not support killing half a million Iraqis.

I guess the guy thinks he deserves a medal or something.

 

[Correll]

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.

It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.


That you are unable to understand this simple concept indicates either a serious social disorder like Aspergers, or that you are a blinded by political zealotry to an insane degree.

 

[Correll]

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.

You disagree with my goal. That does not mean that it is not valid, legitimate, reasonable or moral.


And stop whining about the "innocent human beings". You have accepted collateral damage as a principle, so your whining about is disgusting.

 

[Correll]

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.

YOu seem confused. This thread is about if we supported the invasion. I often find that liberals have trouble with concepts such as linear time or... well, anything real or logical.

 

[Correll]

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.

ALL policy is ALWAYS based on what people believe, and that quite often clashes with what some people would consider "very easily observable reality".

World War One was sold to the American people as a war to "Make the World Safe for Democracy", yet we entered in on the side of Three massive empires, the British, the French and the Russian Empires.

For one limited example.

If this is your complaint, than your problem is not about the Iraqi Invasion, but about the Human Condition.


Hint: People with Aspergers are just as likely to miss shit, as normal people. THey just miss different shit.


This discussion would move faster if you operated in good faith or at least were honest about why you want to spread hate and division.