Iraq War Vote

Discussion in 'Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs' started by Tehon, May 7, 2016.

  1. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Ok NotfooledbyW , it's time to put up or shut up, let's take it to the bullring. I challenge you to a 1 hr or less debate discussing Hillary Clinton's vote on the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The question is, was her vote a vote for war or something else which you are free to describe. The debate should be overseen and voted on by a panel of 3 judges selected from a pool of willing participants or we might set up an open poll to decide who's opinion is more valid. We will decide on the date and time after we have arranged for the panel or voting system.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  2. Freewill
    Offline

    Freewill Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    31,159
    Thanks Received:
    5,038
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +16,634
    She was tricked by the stupidest president ever.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    That is the essence of NotfooledbyW argument.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    i already said it was a vote for war many times if UN inspections were not resumed.

    The something is is the history that preceded and followed her vote?

    You ignore the language in the AUMF that says Bush was authorized to use military force in
    order to enforce all UNSC resolutions. Bush did not. And the language about support for enforcing through a new Round of inspections.

    And your position that terminating Res 1441 and choosing war over inspections was in fact Bush' legitimate way of enforcing 1441 is so absurd there is nothing to debate there,

    Since I've agreed that her vote was in fact a vote for war with a preference for a peaceful alternative as Bush had declared himself to prefer, and the language in the AUMF restricted Bush very clearly to using military force in order to enforce ALL relevant UNSC Resolutions, which he was not doing when he used military force in March 2003, it is obvious you still don't know what we have been discussing.

    And furthermore you have not made a case for why and how you believe that Bush's termination of UN Res 1441 and the long sought peaceful enforcement of all Resolutions regarding Iraw was what the AUMF meant when it was giving Bush the authority to use force prior to those inspections.

    You can first explain how terminating UN inspections to start a war was enforcing what the UNSC wanted to be done.

    You can do that here.

    Moving my arguments somewhere else accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished here.

    So explain your absurd belief that terminating UN inspections to start a war was enforcing what the UNSC wanted to be done. And how you know HRC wanted Bush to terminate those inspections and start a war when she is quoted before the decision was made to prefer continuation of those inspections.

    I will ask you to do that no matter where it is?

     
  5. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    So you start by lying about the essence of my argument. She was not tricked because the AUMF gave Bush the authority to use force in order to enforce UNSC resolutions. Bush was not enforcing anything to do with the UN when he invaded Iraq. You have not produced one iota of evidence that Bush was enforcing what the majority on the Security Council wanted done when he terminated inspections to start a war.

    You cannot hold Clinton responsible for Bush's decision not to enforce 1441. Bush went beyond what she voted for. She was not tricked. You are apparently tricked into believing Bush.
     
  6. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    12,557
    Thanks Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,867
    Congress did not vote to declare war.
    According to international law, the U.S. invasion was illegal. How any 'honest lawyer' could vote for it is impossible to understand.
    That only leaves one alternative.
     
  7. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,204
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,541
    Does that mean you accept the challenge or not?

    I already said you can define your argument. This is only the call out forum if you accept we will define the rules and then move to the main forum where our cases can be weighed in on by some objective observers.
     
  8. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    No you defined the essence of my argument and it shows you are ignorant about what it is.

    No you need to explain why you believe Bush was enforcing Res 1441 by terminating the 1441 ongoing peaceful inspections. Explain it on the original thread. If you have no rational back up for such an absurd belief there is no reason to debate.

    The language in the AUMF rules the day not your absurdity.
     
  9. Freewill
    Offline

    Freewill Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    31,159
    Thanks Received:
    5,038
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +16,634
    When are charges going to be filed? Isn't that the excuse for Mrs. Tuzla Clinton? No charges, no foul?

    If they are going to say Iraq was illegal, then how was Serbia legal? Libya? Syria and now Yemen? How is our whole predator drone program legal?
     
  10. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,752
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,655
    Tehon 14197347


    NFBW 14195722


    True or False? Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.

    I say True.


    "Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003

    "[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...inspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said.




    You say:


    Tehon 14193502

    Go find people who aren't Bush and Iraq Invasion and Bernie Sanders supporters who agree with you on that.
     

Share This Page