Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.

Your two points are not why Bush Declared war on Iraq and told the inspectors to get out on March 17 2003. Those two points were not requirements contained in 1441.

The unilaterally destroyed WMD was known when 1441 was passed. So you are wrong.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction.

That was him failing to live up to the terms of the cease fire.

What agency wrote the terms of the ceasefire?

1441 became the most recent applicable terms of the ceasefire. It was drafted and voted in favor by the United States of America and 14 other members in the UN SECURITY Council. ALL FACT.

SH was not required to provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed by March 17 2003 or any other set date. SH was required to cooperate with inspectors until they were satisfied that the issue could be closed.

SH was not required by 1441. to turn over wmds, for destruction. Indeed because Iraq immediately provided a declaration in accordance with 1441 that they had no WMD or program’s to make them. How can 1441 require Iraq to hand over WMD when Iraq declared the truth that they did not have WMD?

W gave the “Curveball” Intel about the mobile bio weapons facilities to the inspectors to verify. That bogus Intel contained specific reference to an actual physical building where it was claimed that secret rooms/false partitions where truck trailers were being hidden behind fake walls. Curveball made sketches supposedly showing how the mobile bioweapons facilities were built and kept hidden until moved. The inspectors went to the place where Curveball said he worked and saw the hidden trailers. No such secret rooms existed. Curveball was a liar.

On 3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council and the public that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq” based on examination of W’s strongest evidence that SH was hiding something very deadly.

Bush was told that the mobile bioweapons facilities did not exist. WIth a little checking W could have found that the CIA didn’t find Curveball to be a reliable source.

A month earlier In a radio address to the nation, Bush warned that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

A couple days before W’s radio address CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech by Powell. They leave it in.

It was getting very obvious in public that if W decided to invade to disarm Iraq of WMD there was not going to be any to find. But W did just that. AS Trump says W lied us into war. A Very dumb and unnecessary war.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll #1 answered yes to my question from the following post27097208

Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?

The answer yes to that question can be found in post27097661

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.

Correll #2 later denies that nation building would be a just cause for war.

post27390066 nation building NOT as an argument for war.

I never claimed nation building as Just Cause.

But nation building was a justifying argument for war according to Correll #1 most of the time:

post27089576 nation building as an argument for war.

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

post27097661 nation building as an argument for war.

The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

post27172141 nation building as an argument for war.

Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

post: 27201989 nation building as an argument for war.

IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.

post27202160 nation building as an argument for war.

Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.

Its not what the inspectors claimed they were doing in and regarding Iraq’s alleged active WMD programs and stockpiles from November 27 2002 when SH let them in to peacefully enforce 1441 through March 18 2003 when W forced them to leave - It was an observable FACT that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully because no violence, death torture or dismembered and civil rights abuses were happening on Iraqi territory during that time. Then Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe began to disarm Iraq with violence killing and dismemberment and military occupation as the enforcement policy by the US government that was not prepared to do it.

 

[Correll]

1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.

No. Its the establishment of a fact that should be heavily weighed by decision makers when pondering if it is necessary to take military action where a lot of people will be dying including our own.
....

It is a given that any decision of war should consider the human cost. YOu repeatedly making a point that is an accepted given, especially in a hysterical woman sort of way, is certainly an Appeal to Emotion.


The crux of the problem, the crux of YOUR PROBLEM is your refusal to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of arguments and motives that you disagree with.


Thus this leads you into a loop of asking questions that you think are never answered, because you ignore or erase the answers from your mind.


You do this, so that you can smear your enemies for partisan and ideological gain.


The cost of this, is that it is very divisive, ie damaging to the nation's civil society

AND, it makes sure that NONE of hte actual lessons that could be learned from the war, are every learned.


Because you are actively working to bury all the truth about the motives for the war, in order to use it as a partisan weapon.


It is also worth noting that in doing so, you are USING the war dead, in a disrespectful and immoral manner.

 

[Correll]

1. Well, for one thing, the "nobody is dying" is more on an Appeal to Emotion.

It is absolutely true that not one single Iraqi was going to be killed by the UN inspectors that were in Iraq to disarm Iraq. it is absolutely true that the BAATHIST regime was not committing genocide or killing Iraqis when it was in proactive cooperation with the inspectors as required in the 1441 documents that W drafted as a means to avoid war.

Truth is truth. Your disregard of the truth is duly noted and is archived.

So, since the Ba'athis regime, which you admit had committed genocide and mass murder and wars of conquest in the past, was not actively committing genocide or mass murder or a war of conquest at that moment,

it was fine to leave them in power as sanctions collapsed and they would be able to rearm more effectively and move on to their next attempt to grow their power and influence?


I, and America, disagreed.

 

[Correll]

Also, it is dishonest, because you do not give me a chance to answer it, you immediate provide your own answer.

Answer all you want, liar.

What is dishonest about these questions?

If nobody is dying, what was it so ******* urgent on March 19, 2003 that the resumption of hostilities had to start right then and there? Why was it moral to start killing civilians on March 19 2003 in Iraq?

The sanctions were collapsing. Without them Saddam would have been free to rearm and continue his attempt to spread his influence and strive for a leadership role in the Arab world.

And considering that mass murder, genocide, wars of conquest, and anti-Americanism had been part of that process in the past, that seemed, not good.

 

[Correll]

As you just demonstated, with your accusation that I am "morally blind".

You are morally blind if you could not see the observable fact that SH was cooperating fully under 1441 so that you can justify killing half a million IRAQIS because their dictator was guilty of not cooperating. It verifies the fact that you are morally depraved when given the chance to have Muslim people killed who could never do anything to kill or harm you. Just stating the facts.

His responsibility was to provide proof he had destroyed his wmds, or provide the wmds for destruction.

He did not do that. He could not do that.

 

[Correll]

A document is not a fact.

You are an idiot. 1441 is legal documentation to establish facts, rules and obligations by the parties involved.

I own 2 homes and 3 motor vehicles and I keep the documents that prove the fact that I own them in a fireproof safe. On our primary home we had a mortgage where obligations were set forth on paper using language so that all parties could understand the FACTS of the agreement.

The bank loaned us money we paid it back the house is ours according to the facts. it is not someone’s opinion that I own my home cars and motorcycle. It is a documented legal and binding fact.

1441 is the same as that. It is a fact. It gave SH a final opportunity to comply. He was required to cooperate by allowing UN inspectors into the country and giving them unrestricted access to whatever site they chose to visit. SH did that. You cannot disagree with that fact. There was no deadline for final verification of Iraq being fully disarmed. You cannot stipulate additional requirements that are not in the document such as ‘handing over a big pile of WMD that he does not have’ .

Who do you think you are? No one cares that you couldn’t see SH cooperating under 1441. That was an undisputed observable FACT that all could see except warmongers thirsting for Muslim blood such as you.

THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.


Your talk of "thirsting for muslim blood"?

REveals what this is all about to you. Using those that died in the war, for partisan points.


You are disrespecting the dead.

 

[Correll]

Why did you do that?

I want you to answer the questions as written.

...

No, you don't. You demonstrated that you know how to do that, ie ask the question seriously, without peppering the "question" with some much Appeal to Emotion bullshit, that is ceases being a question and becomes a sleazy accusation dishonestly in the structure of a question.


You choose to instead, go for the method that lets you spam demagogic talking points, knowing that I was not going to answer it.


Because using the deaths of the civilians, for partisan attacks, is what this thread is all about.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

No, you don't

Yes I do. You are avoiding the questions because you have no legitimate or morally acceptable answers. That all this is.

 

[Correll]

Based on him NOT providing proof he destroyed the wmds, or provided wmds to be destroyed.

Your two points are not why Bush Declared war on Iraq and told the inspectors to get out on March 17 2003. Those two points were not requirements contained in 1441.

The unilaterally destroyed WMD was known when 1441 was passed. So you are wrong.

Irrelevant opinion of yours.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.

Is that true for the US military operation to find hidden WMD as well.

Why did you support a fools errand?

 

[Correll]

Saddam did not provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed. He did not turn over the wmds, for destruction.

That was him failing to live up to the terms of the cease fire.

What agency wrote the terms of the ceasefire?

1441 became the most recent applicable terms of the ceasefire. It was drafted and voted in favor by the United States of America and 14 other members in the UN SECURITY Council. ALL FACT.

SH was not required to provide proof that the wmds had been destroyed by March 17 2003 or any other set date. SH was required to cooperate with inspectors until they were satisfied that the issue could be closed.

SH was not required by 1441. to turn over wmds, for destruction. Indeed because Iraq immediately provided a declaration in accordance with 1441 that they had no WMD or program’s to make them. How can 1441 require Iraq to hand over WMD when Iraq declared the truth that they did not have WMD?

W gave the “Curveball” Intel about the mobile bio weapons facilities to the inspectors to verify. That bogus Intel contained specific reference to an actual physical building where it was claimed that secret rooms/false partitions where truck trailers were being hidden behind fake walls. Curveball made sketches supposedly showing how the mobile bioweapons facilities were built and kept hidden until moved. The inspectors went to the place where Curveball said he worked and saw the hidden trailers. No such secret rooms existed. Curveball was a liar.

On 3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council and the public that there’s “no evidence” of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq” based on examination of W’s strongest evidence that SH was hiding something very deadly.

Bush was told that the mobile bioweapons facilities did not exist. WIth a little checking W could have found that the CIA didn’t find Curveball to be a reliable source.

A month earlier In a radio address to the nation, Bush warned that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

A couple days before W’s radio address CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech by Powell. They leave it in.

It was getting very obvious in public that if W decided to invade to disarm Iraq of WMD there was not going to be any to find. But W did just that. AS Trump says W lied us into war. A Very dumb and unnecessary war.

you seem determined to focus on an individual tree to the point that you can't see the forest.


Meanwhile in the real world, Saddam was stupid to destroy the wmds, in secret.


You can dance around that all you want. The US, Bush, had just cause for the war.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Irrelevant opinion of yours.

How can the points I made be irrelevant when they refute the points you made that you insist are relevant.

When one’s facts are wrong and dishonest it is extremely relevant to point out the truth in any honest discussion about by all parties.

 

[Correll]

Correll #1 answered yes to my question from the following post27097208

Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?

The answer yes to that question can be found in post27097661

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.

Correll #2 later denies that nation building would be a just cause for war.

post27390066 nation building NOT as an argument for war.

I never claimed nation building as Just Cause.

But nation building was a justifying argument for war according to Correll #1 most of the time:

post27089576 nation building as an argument for war.

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

post27097661 nation building as an argument for war.

The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me.

post27172141 nation building as an argument for war.

Building a functioning Muslim Democracy, as part of the war of ideas, that was/is the War on Terror, IS a matter of National Self Defense.

post: 27201989 nation building as an argument for war.

IMO, Saddam's failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire, BY ITSELF, was legal justification to resume war, and the nation building was just what we choose to do afterwards, as a bonus.

post27202160 nation building as an argument for war.

Do you think that GWBush thought taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic nation was the right policy for America and the World?

Wow.


There is a difference between my personal reason for supporting the war,


and a Just Cause for War.


That you just realized this, imo, is probably part of your general problem with complexity and your desire to over simply.


Instead of listening and understanding what I actually wrote, you reduced everything down to simplistic "pro-war" talk and lumped it all together.


And more importantly, I don't think you are capable of stopping that. You might sort of grasp the distinction right now, MAYBE, though you probably won't admit it.


BUT, in a few hours, they will slide together in your mind, and you will make the same point again, is a tomorrow or the next day.

 

[Correll]

1. The "fact" that the inspectors claimed they were peacefully disarming Saddam, was not credible.

Its not what the inspectors claimed they were doing in and regarding Iraq’s alleged active WMD programs and stockpiles from November 27 2002 when SH let them in to peacefully enforce 1441 through March 18 2003 when W forced them to leave - It was an observable FACT that Iraq was being disarmed peacefully because no violence, death torture or dismembered and civil rights abuses were happening on Iraqi territory during that time. Then Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe began to disarm Iraq with violence killing and dismemberment and military occupation as the enforcement policy by the US government that was not prepared to do it.

how could they have been "being disarmed" when the weapons were already destroyed?

YOru position is contradictory.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

you seem determined to focus on an individual tree

One tree wrote the surrender agreement with SH in 1991. The same tree wrote 1441 in November 2002. That tree is the United NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Do you think it was sitting else?

 

[Correll]

No, you don't

Yes I do. You are avoiding the questions because you have no legitimate or morally acceptable answers. That all this is.

Nope. As I demonstrated when you experimented with actually asking questions. I am happy to answer them.

Your choice. Do you want to discuss the issue, some more, so you can go though the loop, or do you want to spam divisive talking points.

 

[Correll]

THe inspectors were never going to find the wmds. It was a fools errand.

Is that true for the US military operation to find hidden WMD as well.

Why did you support a fools errand?

Because I did not know that it was a fools errand at the time.

Note I am not claiming that that search was succeeding, at any point in time. I now know that it was doomed to fail.


You though, are claiming that Iraq was being "peacefully disarmed" at a time, when you know that it was ALREADY disarmed.


That is, double talk, used to justify your pretzel logic.