So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss11823703,

Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences. .

Were is my exception to my statement. Dishonest again you are.

Here is my full statement: "If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq - the[n] its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes."

What's wrong with you? Why do you pull these dishonest stunts over and over again? The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions. And in Iraq in 2003 diplomacy was working just fine. Better than ever for all those years.

 

[Boss]

No Boss, here what it specifically says. If you wish to claim what it specifically says you should look it up and show us what it specifically says. I did. It too ten seconds.


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Do you know Boss, what "Strictly enforce through the UNSC" means? That is through not in defiance of the UNSC which is what Bush did. What is the UNSC Boss? Do you know. According to the AUMG Bush was supposed to go by what the majority on the UNSC came up with (which he could veto if he did not like it.) But he liked it and did not veto it.

FUCK you are a hard head! Why do you insist on cherry-picking parts of the AUMF and trying to pretend that was ALL it said? This is in Sec 2! You didn't seem to even pay attention to ALL of that! What about obtaining prompt and decisive action by the SC to ensure Iraq stops dicking around? They supported his efforts to do that too. But Section 3 is where they give him the unilateral authority to use military force at his discretion.

And I don't understand what your point is anyway.. He DID let them pass 1441 and try it! The inspectors were there for how long? 2~3 months? If Saddam had immediately cooperated, as he was ordered to do, it would have been over in 2~3 weeks! Mostly all he had to do was turn over documentation. Technically, that takes about 5 minutes... the inspectors confirm the info and they're outta there. That never happened. Saddam continued to pull the same shit as always and Bush proved he was not bluffing.

 

[Boss]

Boss11823703,

Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences. .

Were is my exception to my statement. Dishonest again you are.

Here is my full statement: "If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq - the[n] its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes."

What's wrong with you? Why do you pull these dishonest stunts over and over again? The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions. And in Iraq in 2003 diplomacy was working just fine. Better than ever for all those years.

What the hell are you talking about? UN1441 and AUMF did not require there to be some "actionable military threat" from Iraq. Nowhere was it ever stated that we weren't going to invade Iraq unless they started shooting first.

Diplomacy was not "working just fine" because Saddam wasn't complying and cooperating immediately as required by 1441. AUMF and 1441 did not stipulate that we would continue endless diplomacy as long as Saddam didn't start shooting at us. Nothing in them indicates any such thing... this is straight out of your stupid little Saddam-loving head.

You missed your calling bro... you shoulda been born an Iraqi so that you could have worked for the regime! They couldn't have found a more fierce and defiant proponent to carry their water! I bet Saddam would have let you run around with Uday and Qusay raping young virgins on their 16th birthdays as they routinely liked to do! You woulda probably loved that, you piece of shit.

 

[Boss]

Pay attention I said Congress had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all. And that is true. What you wrote is plain as day. "Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the fucking bill!" Congress could not possibly know that.

*Sigh*

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Now, assuming you're not to stupid to understand, the only "action" the UNSC can take is passing a resolution... then, yes, Congress did know this. You just posted this and then turned around and tried to claim congress couldn't have possibly known there would be another UN resolution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Boss11823703,

Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences. .

Were is my exception to my statement. Dishonest again you are.

Here is my full statement: "If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq - the[n] its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes."

What's wrong with you? Why do you pull these dishonest stunts over and over again? The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions. And in Iraq in 2003 diplomacy was working just fine. Better than ever for all those years.

What the hell are you talking about? UN1441 and AUMF did not require there to be some "actionable military threat" from Iraq. Nowhere was it ever stated that we weren't going to invade Iraq unless they started shooting first.

Diplomacy was not "working just fine" because Saddam wasn't complying and cooperating immediately as required by 1441. AUMF and 1441 did not stipulate that we would continue endless diplomacy as long as Saddam didn't start shooting at us. Nothing in them indicates any such thing... this is straight out of your stupid little Saddam-loving head.

You missed your calling bro... you shoulda been born an Iraqi so that you could have worked for the regime! They couldn't have found a more fierce and defiant proponent to carry their water! I bet Saddam would have let you run around with Uday and Qusay raping young virgins on their 16th birthdays as they routinely liked to do! You woulda probably loved that, you piece of shit.

The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam, more of a threat to those around them than Saddam. They supported Pakistan at this time. I mean, seriously, PAKISTAN????

We know why Bush went into Iraq, and it had sweet FA to do with WMDs that we know he had one part of his "intelligence" branch basically make up so he could deliberately believe them.

 

[Boss]

The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions.

Well no... this is wrong too, Bozo. There were several attempts made to amend AUMF to place these kinds of caveats on the authorization and they all failed to pass. Durbin and Byrd both had amendments that failed and there were numerous others. So all this shit you're trying to claim the AUMF stipulated in the fine print, is not there!

AUMF specifically mentions (several times) the "continued threat posed by Iraq." It outlines the specific seriousness of the threat in great detail. This absolute moronic idiocy that there was somehow NO threat and Congress passed an AUMF for shits and giggles, is astonishing.

You need to lay off the crack pipe.

 

[Boss]

The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam...

Fucking totally irrelevant.

We know why Bush went into Iraq, and it had sweet FA to do with WMDs that we know he had one part of his "intelligence" branch basically make up so he could deliberately believe them.

You're going to need to prove this total horse shit. I'm calling you out on this because IF this were true, Bush would have been impeached, and rightly so. No intel was fabricated, this was the finding of several hearings and investigations following the war.

 

[Boss]

They supported Pakistan at this time. I mean, seriously, PAKISTAN????

And Pakistan cooperated with us! They did everything we asked them to do, they even let us bomb the hell out their mountains in the north to kill the rat bastard terrorists who fled Afghanistan.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This absolute moronic idiocy that there was somehow NO threat and Congress passed an AUMF for shits and giggles, is astonishing.

The non-actionable continuing threat from Iraq in October 2003 was that SH did not allow the inspectors in for for years. That is not "no threat" but it was considered a continuing threat because it had not risen to a level where we found SH preparing to attack us.

You revised my words again. That is dishonest.


I wrote in post: 11823976, There was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. That is true. Have you heard any mention of one.

I asked you to explain how the continuing threat of no inspectors in October 2002 rose to the level of a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq that supports the dumb idea of sending on 200,000 ground troops in March 2003?

Have you done so yet?

 

[Boss]

I don't need to explain anything to you, jackass.

The AUMF was issued because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies. It is outlined in the AUMF with three pages of "whereas" statements detailing every aspect of the threat he posed. UN1441 and the other 17 UN resolutions were passed because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the international community.

You trying to sit here and claim he wasn't a threat is laughable. Why the hell do you believe they were passing authorizations and resolutions? Just to pick on poor Saddam?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And I don't understand what your point is anyway.. He DID let them pass 1441 and try it! The inspectors were there for how long? 2~3 months? If Saddam had immediately cooperated, as he was ordered to do, it would have been over in 2~3 weeks! Mostly all he had to do was turn over documentation. Technically, that takes about 5 minutes... the inspectors confirm the info and they're outta there. That never happened. Saddam continued to pull the same shit as always and Bush proved he was not bluffing.

You don't understand because you are ignorant. There was no deadline in Res 1441. It called for immediate cooperation and SH did cooperate immediately. The process could have taken a year if you read the actual language of 1441. And Bush did not see an immediate or actionable threat when he told Negroponte to vote yes for 1441.

There was a continuing threat in October 2002 that could be dealt with by diplomacy. Bush was in agreement with that. Do you have evidence to the contrary looking back in time to November 2002?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam...

Fucking totally irrelevant.

We know why Bush went into Iraq, and it had sweet FA to do with WMDs that we know he had one part of his "intelligence" branch basically make up so he could deliberately believe them.

You're going to need to prove this total horse shit. I'm calling you out on this because IF this were true, Bush would have been impeached, and rightly so. No intel was fabricated, this was the finding of several hearings and investigations following the war.

Not "fucking totally irrelevant" but with a response like that I can't even be bothered to explain why.

As for "You're going to need to prove this total horse shit", again, no, I don't bother with people like you.

 

[Faun]

What I'm talking about is that you're fucking baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

Here's what you said:
the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush.

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush.

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious.

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.

You're a fucking retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. Now you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid.

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- we fucking wrote it, ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.

Well I'm sorry you are as clueless about how UN resolutions are made as you are virtually everything else but I can assure you that the US and UK don't write their resolutions. I didn't change anything..;. Bush wasn't involved in writing the resolution and had no authority over the contents. The US Ambassador did, but he's not BUSH!

And before this goes one step further... I never said that Bush didn't agree with the resolution, opposed the resolution, wasn't happy with the language or content of the resolution... just that he didn't have any involvement or authority over the content and he was never obligated to defer his authority as president to the UN.

Great. Now you're further compounding your idiocy beyond just ridiculously claiming Bush had no "voice" and no "authority" in what went into U.N. resolution 1441; to add to your ignorance, not knowing that the resolution was written by the U.S. & the U.K..

Like I said, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...

"We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell​

Hey fuckwits... "WE" doesn't goddamn translate to George W. Bush in any translation dictionary I have... where the fuck are you making that amazing leap in logic?

Yes.... people fucking wrote UN1441! I didn't think it wrote itself! Powell did not say the US and UK wrote it... he said "WE" ....and that could be anybody... the UN, the Security Council, etc.

So I hope you've been educated here... WE doesn't mean George W. Bush!

You're too stupid to educate anyone.

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

Despite your astonishing ignorance about the U.S. & the U.K. writing resolution 1441, they actually did...

In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.​

You've got to have shit for brains to be spending all this effort denying they wrote it when the truth is, you have no fucking clue who wrote it.

Even worse, you idiotically think Bush had no "voice" or "authority" over what went in it; even though, as Colin Powell said, "we wrote 1441."

Like I said....

You're a fucking retard.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11824510

The AUMF was issued because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies.

Exactly. Where have I said he wasn't? His failure to allow the inspectors in was referered to as a continual threat. Where you fall off the realm of reality is when refuse to acknowledge that the continual threat from Iraq was possible to be resolved by diplomatic means. Even Bush43 held that view when the AUMF was passed. Do you agree with everything so far?

Perhaps you are too stupid to deal with one or two thoughts at one time. So let's do one step at a time. Do you agree with what I wrote?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11824510

The AUMF was issued because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies.

Is there only one degree or one level of threat that exists in the world? Can certain levels of threats be dealt with diplomatically including under the threat of using military force if diplomacy fails to REDUCE the threat?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11824510

You trying to sit here and claim he wasn't a threat is laughable. Why the hell do you believe they were passing authorizations and resolutions? Just to pick on poor Saddam?

Apparently I know why they passed the AUMF and resolution 1441 in Oct and Nov 2002. I also no you must lie about my what ai know because your entire web of lies on Iraq unravel when you read the truth. So you have to destroy the truth to fake your way through this subject. What's fascinating is that you think you can get away with it. I said Iraq was a continuing threat so don't tell that lie again.

NF 11824446

. The non-actionable continuing threat from Iraq in October 2003 was that SH did not allow the inspectors in for four years.

I've said this for a dozen years and that is why I believed Kerry and Clinton's vote for the AUMF was correct. And that may bother some of my liberal friends over the years but that is what I have always believed.

You just don know how to argue against that view - because there is no argument from the conservative pro-Bush side.

 

[Boss]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11824510

The AUMF was issued because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies.

Exactly. Where have I said he wasn't? His failure to allow the inspectors in was referered to as a continual threat. Where you fall off the realm of reality is when refuse to acknowledge that the continual threat from Iraq was possible to be resolved by diplomatic means. Even Bush43 held that view when the AUMF was passed. Do you agree with everything so far?

Perhaps you are too stupid to deal with one or two thoughts at one time. So let's do one step at a time. Do you agree with what I wrote?

No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed. And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed.

I didn't say it was the 'sole' threat. So answer whether you agree or not that Bush43 his damned self believed in October 2002 that whatever Iraq threat other than 'the lack of inspectors for verification of presence of WMD' that you have cobbled up in your brain back then, was a threat that could be resolved diplomatically instead of using massive military force. Nobody sent "democracy inspectors"
into Iraq during SH's final opportunity to comply.

So your dodge of the question doesn't work anyway. Why not honestly tell us whether you agree or not. If not why?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11827803

No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed.

I asked if you agreed with this statement;

Notfooled 11826059

His failure to allow the inspectors in was referered to as a continual threat

Are you sure you don't agree that Iraq's 12 years of violations and obstruction of UNSC WMD inspections was not referred to as a continual or continuing threat to the security of the United States and many other nations in the world?

What was then? Rape Rooms? Failure to return Kuwait's art? Saddam's golden toilet seats? What?