What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 48 69.6%

  • Total voters
    69

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
Don't know, don't care. Seems irrelevant
It is obvious that facts that upset the false reality that you have created are always called irrrelevant. It is a fact that 1441 does not deal with any of the “whereas factors“ in the AUMF Iraq 2002. those that were unrelated to WMD disarmament we’re never meant or intended to be justification for the war. It is impossible that they were because of the “final opportunity” offering to the regime in Iraq.

Some of the “whereas factors“ had absolutely nothing to do with enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq.

An example is the “whereas factor” Regarding the 1998 establishing democracy Iraqi liberation act was passed in the United States Congress no United Nations Security Council.

W within the AUMF was restricted to “enforcing all relevant Security Council resolutions against Iraq“.

You’ve been living and telling a big Iraq lie for 18 years - The one that Iraq could be invaded based on the argument installing a democracy would make the world a better place without Saddam Hussein. The argument that without SH in the world it is a better place is true. But the launch of war solely on that basis has no merit and it was never authorized by the United States Congress. So you are a liar

Because SH was offered a final opportunity to comply and that dealt solely and inarguably with compliance on his disarmament issues there would not have been a war to nation build had SH complied or have been verified complied like the United Nations inspectors would have done but for the decision to kill half a million Iraqi in order to disarm Saddam Hussein through violence.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
ematic nonsense.
I’m aware that you would go there so that’s why I made sure there is no semantics. Everything is based on facts. And you will not be able to refute the facts. Being a liar that you are and a complete fake and failure at life all your arguments boil down to either it’s semantics it’s irrelevant or calling someone a retard and a Lib

That’s you dude. Its your MO.

you do draw out perfect arguments by me and that is why I love you so much.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
no, I clearly do not agree.
YOU MUST HAVE A REASON if it’s ‘clearly’ in your head. Do you mind sharing as to why you believe 1441 was not US policy to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply?
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
Ok. So, why did you say that they did know it?
They did know that Iraq claimed they were unilaterally destroyed in 1998 and it was not documented.

My point is the UNSC and USA knew about the unilaterally destroyed old weapons when they gave SH a final opportunity to comply. You made the point that Iraq should not have done it so he didn’t deserve a last chance to comply and your other bull shit that Iraq inspectors cant determine or verify the Iraqi claim.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
FUTURE generations need to know that only 4 of 10 Americans were the angry Islamophobic Christian culture Americans that got their big costly deadly unnecessary war only because the President of the United States A REPUBLICAN lied.

White washers like you need to be exposed so it never happens again.

LOL!!! Is that your point? Is that what this was all about?

I told you what it’s about a while ago.


We learned a lot about you as the conversation moved along.

One of the most interesting was this:

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions.

He probably was .... going through the motions.. he is a liar.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
I guess American cultural Christian paleo conservatives don’t pay much attention to history

“On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941.”


Starting a war with a nation that is not a threat to us is not depraved. Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

We learned Correll will say ignorant things about the unnecessary killing of half a million Iraqis to find wmd, such as the WWII generation did it to the non-threat NAZI regime 80 years ago.


I do not remember SH declaring war on the United States after one of his allies in the effort for world domination bombed US Navy Ships as they sat in harbor in a surprise attack...

The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor answered that question. On December 8, Japanese Ambassador Oshima went to German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to nail the Germans down on a formal declaration of war against America. Von Ribbentrop stalled for time; he knew that Germany was under no obligation to do this under the terms of the Tripartite Pact, which promised help if Japan was attacked, but not if Japan was the aggressor. Von Ribbentrop feared that the addition of another antagonist, the United States, would overwhelm the German war effort.​
[Hitler] was convinced that the United States would soon beat him to the punch and declare war on Germany. The U.S. Navy was already attacking German U-boats, and Hitler despised Roosevelt for his repeated verbal attacks against his Nazi ideology. He also believed that Japan was much stronger than it was, that once it had defeated the United States, it would turn and help Germany defeat Russia. So at 3:30 p.m. (Berlin time) on December 11, the German charge d’affaires in Washington handed American Secretary of State Cordell Hull a copy of the declaration of war.​


SH’s IRAQ was heavily bombed by the US and UK during the SUMMER if 2003 But SH’s response was to invite the US and UK to enter Iraq to identify sites suspected of production and stockpiling of WMD.

I do not recall Iraq declaring war on the US whIle 2000 UN Inspectors were working on disarming Iraq peacefully.


Declaration of War on Germany, December 11, 1941​

On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941. Responding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solemn affirmation that “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere,​
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
The one that Iraq could be invaded based on the argument installing a democracy would make the world a better place without Saddam Hussein. The argument that without SH in the world it is a better place is true. But the launch of war solely on that basis has no merit and it was never authorized by the United States Congress.


1. Never said "solely".

2. The many reasons for the war were part of the debate for the war and part of getting support for the war.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
no, I clearly do not agree.
YOU MUST HAVE A REASON if it’s ‘clearly’ in your head. Do you mind sharing as to why you believe 1441 was not US policy to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply?


You know, everything you cut, was relevant to answering that question, right?

"
IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions. He did not believe that Saddam would even try to take him up on it, and if he did try, Bush would have been EXTREMELY skeptical of any offer.

But the offer Was Earnestly made in the name of the United States of America to give SH one final chance to comply avoid a war and therefore stay in power.

Do you agree?

it is very kind of you but I am not interested in your evaluation of the offer, just want to make it clear that you understand if the offer was made"




1. You are BEGGING THE QUESTION, in stating as a premise, "earnestly made".

2. When you ask me if I agree with that, you are thus asking me, my evaluation of the offer.

3. My evaluation is that the offer was NOT earnestly made. That Bush was just going though the motions.

4. Which was completely understandable.



Why do you think that Bush wanted to invade Iraq?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
Ok. So, why did you say that they did know it?
They did know that Iraq claimed they were unilaterally destroyed in 1998 and it was not documented.

My point is the UNSC and USA knew about the unilaterally destroyed old weapons when they gave SH a final opportunity to comply. You made the point that Iraq should not have done it so he didn’t deserve a last chance to comply and your other bull shit that Iraq inspectors cant determine or verify the Iraqi claim.



1. HUGE difference between KNOWING SOMETHING, and KNOWING THAT SOMETHING WAS CLAIMED. That you conflate the two is a very serious use of dishonesty to make your.... theory hold together. BIG FLAW THERE.


2. My reasoning for him "not deserving a last chance" was not because he had destroyed the weapons and failed to document it. That you thought that reflects a very confused understanding on your part.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
You know, everything you cut, was relevant to answering that question, right?

No I do not know that. I do know that this tactic is another one of your Tricks. It’s the questions you can’t answer the tell me the most about you.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
1. Never said "solely".



Did you or did you not find the WMD argument to you personally to be unconvincing?


2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. Or did you just make that up after the fact when the WMD argument went up in $5 trillion worth of smoke?


Does that mean you were not convinced by the sole justification based on a threat for war that made war necessary? The only justification for war presented by our government was to disarm Iraq of WMD by enforcing all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
As is the pretense that the "threat" Iraq posed, was the only basis for the war. There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, even by themselves they justify war, by the traditional rules of just war.

1. Never said "solely".



Definition of solely
1 : to the exclusion of all else
done solely for money
2 : without another : SINGLY
went solely on her way


You @Correl said “ even by themselves they justify war”.

Yeah, right you never said solely but you sure meant solely, without another, to the exclusion of all else, individually, on their own, alone.


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, (without another) they justify war,


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, (solely) they justify war,


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, ( to the exclusion of all else) they justify war.



Oh and by the way you were responding to the following when you @Correl wrote “ even by themselves they justify war” ......

And your pre-war support for waging war to nation build was not and will not ever be a justified war on the basis of proportionality to moral lawful civilized human beings. That’s a fact that making up your own rules will never fly. You are a fascist - you don’t get to make the rules.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
1,957
Points
245
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.


So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us.

BUT, DO YOU AGREE THAT NOT BEING DIRECTLY THREATENED, is not a bar to war? as in my example with Nazi Germany?


Or do you think that our declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a mistake?


Did Iraq have the military and industrial capability making it well on its way to “enslave the entire world” as the fascist Tripartite Pact of Germany, Japan and Italy?



On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941. Responding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solemn affirmation that “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere,


Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us before FDR declared war on them because “ “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere”.


Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole. Its


I Am A WHAT?
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
1. Never said "solely".



Did you or did you not find the WMD argument to you personally to be unconvincing?


2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. Or did you just make that up after the fact when the WMD argument went up in $5 trillion worth of smoke?


Does that mean you were not convinced by the sole justification based on a threat for war that made war necessary? The only justification for war presented by our government was to disarm Iraq of WMD by enforcing all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to Iraq.


I did find that argument unconvincing. But, I realize that other people can think differently than me, and when you ask about the debate the nation as a whole had at that time, then my answers are about what the group as a whole did or thought, as a group not me personally.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
As is the pretense that the "threat" Iraq posed, was the only basis for the war. There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, even by themselves they justify war, by the traditional rules of just war.

1. Never said "solely".



Definition of solely
1 : to the exclusion of all else
done solely for money
2 : without another : SINGLY
went solely on her way


You @Correl said “ even by themselves they justify war”.

Yeah, right you never said solely but you sure meant solely, without another, to the exclusion of all else, individually, on their own, alone.


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, (without another) they justify war,


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, (solely) they justify war,


There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, ( to the exclusion of all else) they justify war.



Oh and by the way you were responding to the following when you @Correl wrote “ even by themselves they justify war” ......

And your pre-war support for waging war to nation build was not and will not ever be a justified war on the basis of proportionality to moral lawful civilized human beings. That’s a fact that making up your own rules will never fly. You are a fascist - you don’t get to make the rules.


Are you being confused by the fact that I pointed out, that in my opinion, there were many reasons cited that INDIVIDUALLY could have justified war?


Just because I believe that they COULD have been used INDIVIDUALLY, does not mean that they WERE used that way.


They obviously were NOT.


Do you like the idea that wars, when they reach a certain point, can be ended with Peace Treaties so that every war does nto have to be fought to the last man, with a scorched earth ending?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
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.


So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us.

BUT, DO YOU AGREE THAT NOT BEING DIRECTLY THREATENED, is not a bar to war? as in my example with Nazi Germany?


Or do you think that our declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a mistake?


Did Iraq have the military and industrial capability making it well on its way to “enslave the entire world” as the fascist Tripartite Pact of Germany, Japan and Italy?



On December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. This prompted Germany to declare war on the United States, which, in turn, led to the United States to declare war on Germany on December 11, 1941. Responding to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solemn affirmation that “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere,


Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us before FDR declared war on them because “ “the forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere”.


Correct. Iraq did not have the capacity to directly threaten us, nor to "enslave the entire world".


They did have the capacity to become a regional hegemon, in a very strategic region, leading to making the world a far grimmer and less safe place.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
77,207
Reaction score
18,245
Points
2,220
Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it. You are just an asshole.


I Am A WHAT?


Well, you were certainly acting like one at that time.

When you construct elaborate structures of belief, based on biased assumptions and then insult other people based on them, like calling people bloodthirsty, that reflects on you.


You shouldn't do that.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$515.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top