Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
Why did you support Nation Building by military invasion knowing that our military was not prepared to nation build when Bush sent them in on March 17
2003?
when and what countries was that?My agreement was implied when I made the point that there were other times that we declared war with a nation that did not threaten US.
Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.
I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.
After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.
The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII
Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939www.google.com
Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event
Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler
Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?
The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.
You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.
My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.
Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.
It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.
My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.
A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.
DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?
lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.
Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.
Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.
It wasn't about WMDs or oil or democracy or Iraq being a threat to the neighbors. What's left but Bibi's demands?
Mmm, I don't see anything clearly against preemptive war.
There is plenty in your link. See bullets.
Preemptive war can never be a just war if there is a peaceful solution and it is possible and attempts at reaching it are not exhausted.
You have asserted that the invasion of Iraq was not a response to a threat. WWII was a threat from a superior military expanding its borders.
- It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
- In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
SH was not about to attack anybody.
- Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack.
- War to punish a guilty enemy.
The was dealing with that under international law and 1441
- War is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:
- It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
- Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate.
Any violence used in a preemptive war to nation build is not commensurate with the evil of SADDAM HUSSEIN cooperating with inspections. That is a fact.
Six out of ten Americans opposed the invasion without UN Authorization. They know what a just war requires. And they were absolutely right.
You are a liar. The American Civil War was about slavery. The war about slavery was started when the traitor Confederates attacked Federal property and the newly sworn in President responded to the attack accordinglyHe is pretending that the Civil War was about Federal Property, when it was about slavery.
The facts are as follows.
South Carolina became the first state to secede from the federal Union on December 20, 1860. The victory of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election triggered cries for disunion across the slaveholding South. The secession of South Carolina precipitated the outbreak of the American Civil War in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861.So stop with the fantasy that I am pretending anything other than what I state to be my understanding of history and the critical facts therein.
Lincoln did not advocate freeing the slaves in the slave states until after the first anniversary of the war. He advocated no slavery in new territory an stated which would do no harm to existing slave owners way of life.Freeing the slaves in the majority of the slave states, meant that slavery was effectively ended in the country.
I like the way that you try to limit the discussion of Lincoln to what he said DURING THE CAMPAIGN, as though the slave owners, were unable to know about his earlier, very strong abolitionists statements and positions.
That shows that you ALREADY KNOW, that Lincoln was a very strong ABOLITIONIST, and that further you know that the slaver owners would know that, and that Lincoln KNEW THAT THEY KNEW.
Thus, his lying during the campaign, pretending to be moderate, was him lying US into war.
You did not challenge my facts in the above post #1277 from you. Therefore, This is a lie.
ALL OF THEM
Here is my fact that you failed to dispute or accept.
“The South started the CIVILWar. If you dispute that FACT show me why.”
Do you disagree with that fact.
its a fact that destroys the entirety of your Lincoln bullshit argument. Boom! Simple as that.
Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.
I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.
After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII
Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event
Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler
Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?
The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.
You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.
My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.
Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.
It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.
My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.
A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.
DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?
lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.
Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone when Bush invaded, but its what Bibi wanted.
Bush had his reasons for invading Iraq. They were many and varied. That you are focused on what Bibi wanted is about you, not Bush, not Bush's or Trump's supporters.
It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
This is not my opinion. This is a fact:
FACT #1
W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.
FACT #2
It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.
Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?
Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way? The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.
No it is impossible that Bush was sure that Iraq had WMD and was “hiding” it from 1441 inspectors in March 2003.Yes, George Bush was sure, and yet was wrong.
If he was lying on March 8 that he had made no decision on the necessity of war then he was capable of lying on March 17 that he had no doubt that Iraq possessed WMD and was hiding it from the inspectors.
To have “sure“ intelligence that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors it had to be accompanied with the specific location where it was being hidden.
There are two points with respect to that. Number one: if George W. Bush was positive of the location of hidden stockpiles of WMD he would’ve given it to the inspectors as was required by 1441. And then he could choose to wage war if the United Nations Security Council still would not authorize military action against Iraq. He had the smoking gun.
It’s obvious Bush did not have positive intelligence because he could not share it. They didn’t have a specific location.
And number two: the fact that when the invasion started they could not go directly to a location where the “most lethal weapons ever devised” were allegedly being hidden from the United Nations Security Council inspectors.
You are defending the President of the United States that started a $5 trillion war that killed half a million people who did not bother if what he said was true. He could not be bothered to ask his intelligence services if they were certain and if they knew exactly where the WMD was being hidden.
He didn’t ask in my opinion because he didn’t care.
His aim was to start a war all along and no matter what response Saddam Hussein gave to the inspectors. And after March, starting a war in Iraq heat and dust storms was too late for political reasons at hone.
George W. Bush lied. Donald J Trump is correct. Bush lied us into war.
.
That is not a reply to what was asked.But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.
W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.
It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming a Iraq peacefully.
The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.
It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
It is your opinion that the UN was doing that, not a fact.
This is not my opinion. This is a fact:
FACT #1
W went to the United Nations Security Council as he was telling the American people that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully if the United Nations Security Council and the dictatorship in Iraq agreed to resume inspections.
FACT #2
It was a fact in the early months of 2003 that the United Nations Security Council was well into the process of disarming Iraq peacefully.
Do you dispute Fact #1 in any way?
Do you dispute Fact #2 in any way? The United Nations was disarming Iraq under the authority of 1441 from November 2002 through March 16 2003. There was no violence involved in that process. It was peaceful. Can you dispute that in any way? It was not the inspectors or the Baathist regime that ended the peaceful process. It was George W Bush.. All true. All FACT. why do you lie in 2021 that it was my opinion? Explain why you lie by denying historical fact.
I see that President Bush said something.
I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.
IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".
But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative. Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.
I don't see how you could trust Saddam to truly cooperate.
That is not what you were asked. Did the 1441 chief weapons inspectors evaluate and report that SH was indeed cooperating prior to Bush‘s decision to invade?But barring that, nothing would convince me that Saddam was being truly cooperative.
Well, tell us about them?Does it? I can think of several scenarios easily where that would not be true.
IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
I was not talking about statements regarding a prediction whether or whether not SH would cooperate.Any statement based on the idea that he would be, barring hard proof, were not "facts" but fantasies.
Silly words games to dodge the fact t
2. The peaceful process was not working. It could never have been "finished".
IF, at some point prior to the war, Saddam had come clean and turned over a large amount of wmds, and the experts agreed that that had to be the bulk of his shit,
THEN I would have been convinced that he had been "disarmed".
You mean you supported invading Iraq to do nation building but you gave your support for killing civilians in order to destroy their government, their police and courts and their fire department, their water and electricity infrastructure, their food production and distribution but you did not bother to ask yourself if Bush was prepared to take care of the the innocent people whose lives he would disrupt after Shocking and awe-ing them.It is interesting that you pretend to know what I thought in the past.
