Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

US policy in March 2003 was operating along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution took into account every single dastardly thing that Saddam Hussein had done since 1990 Including the invasion of Kuwait.

He was given a final opportunity to comply under the United State war policy at that time. That means the invasion of Kuwait had absolutely nothing to do with making a determination if Iraq was disarmed.

My discussion points do not leave that out.
....

None of that really follows.

That US policy was "operating along with 1441" does not support any of what you say.

That resolution did NOT take into account every single think Saddam ever did.


That the resolution took any of it into account, does not mean that the rest of the context doesn't matter any more.


NOthing in your post supports the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament.


Your discussion points are structured like a supporting argument, but are really fairly random, unrelated stuff.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That US policy was "operating along with 1441" does not support any of what you say.

Why not?

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.

So if 1441 would allow SH to stay in power despite the fact that he invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990 then if you had a functioning brain you would understand that in March 2003 it did not matter that he had invaded Kuwait.

Iraq was not operating its military outside of its borders in 2003 and that jis a fact.

 

[Correll]

Why not?

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.

So if 1441 would allow SH to stay in power despite the fact that he invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990 then if you had a functioning brain you would understand that in March 2003 it did not matter that he had invaded Kuwait.

Iraq was not operating its military outside of its borders in 2003 and that jis a fact.

A better question is "why?".


When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN, and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking, or what we might consider as we make our next step.


Your.... odd assumption that it does, is.... very odd. LIke not based in reality or any understanding on how humans work.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

When the US "operates with" the UN, it is not working UNDER the UN,

I didn’t say anything about working ‘under’ you disinformation maniacal jerk. I said working ‘with’ the UN so I mean working ‘with’ …… no need for your format tantrum.

Biden wanted to work with the UN - Cheney did not.. for months leading up to the invasion W told us his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully. You called that W going through the motions. So W was privately for the CHENEY **** the UN invasion policy while pretending to be for the Biden work with the UN Invasion policy .
Did you believe Cheney had the more reality based proposal for invading or Senator Biden.

Did Cheney’s optimism for being greeted as liberators with no worries about creating an insurgency and backlash against our troops after invading a Muslim Nation that has serious sectarian divides influence your support invading Iraq and killing innocent Iraqis to hunt for wmds.

Just so you know I thought that Joe was right - in the event we go in we best be preuared to keep civil order after toppling the regime.

Why do you avoid telling us your choice.?

What are you hiding?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

None of that really follows

DONT you mean you are too stupid to follow it or if you admit you follow it your entire house of cards based on lies will fall down.

Was it third grade that children learn that just because you say something it does not mean it is true. You need to support what you say more than “just because” “because I said so. “

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NOthing in your post supports the idea that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament.

I think you mean invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament because I am right in what I explained.


And you prove yourself to be a liar once again because I did not say “ the invasion of (Kuwait) had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. You lie. Please stop for your own good and to avoid future dumb wars.

I wrote

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.

To a specific end “it did not matter” and I explain why it did not matter.

But you can’t refute my point so you lie that I wrote the invasion of KUWAIT had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament.

NOTHING TO DO WITH?? you lying Trump voter.. WHERE Did YOU GET That?

It did not matter Nothing to do with they have entirely different meanings / you are a liar.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A better question is "why?".

WHY What?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

and just because there is some paper work with an UN letterhead on it, involved, does not limit US actions or thinking,

I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,

W made 1441 US policy until he saw I believe that Iraq was cooperating and then made up intelligence that he says left no doubt that IRAQ was hiding the most lethal Weapons ever devised and told the inspectors to leave rather than confirm or debunk W’s make believe Intel.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So, you do understand the concept of context

I understand the context that you are an idiot.

Which nation invaded another nation In March 2003. Was it the USA or was it Iraq.

 

[Correll]

I didn’t say anything about working ‘under’ you disinformation maniacal jerk. I said working ‘with’ the UN so I mean working ‘with’ …… no need for your format tantrum.

Biden wanted to work with the UN - Cheney did not.. for months leading up to the invasion W told us his preference was to disarm Iraq peacefully. You called that W going through the motions. So W was privately for the CHENEY **** the UN invasion policy while pretending to be for the Biden work with the UN Invasion policy .
Did you believe Cheney had the more reality based proposal for invading or Senator Biden.

Did Cheney’s optimism for being greeted as liberators with no worries about creating an insurgency and backlash against our troops after invading a Muslim Nation that has serious sectarian divides influence your support invading Iraq and killing innocent Iraqis to hunt for wmds.

Just so you know I thought that Joe was right - in the event we go in we best be preuared to keep civil order after toppling the regime.

Why do you avoid telling us your choice.?

What are you hiding?

If we are working WITH them, then there is not requirement that their resolution requires that we stop thinking about the context or events that may or may not have been considered in the writing of the resolution.


So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.


I think Bush was convinced that Saddam would never truly cooperate in good faith. And even if he was pressured into some level of compliance, would IMMEDIATELY upon having the chance, go back to his policy of aggression and hostility to US and his neighbors.


And I think that was reality based. And I agree with him. You never discuss what you imagine a Saddam Iraq would look like today.


Word was, that his sons were even worse than he was. If Saddam had died of old age by now, or even just retired and let them take over, it could very well be worse than it ever was.

 

[Correll]

DONT you mean you are too stupid to follow it or if you admit you follow it your entire house of cards based on lies will fall down.

Was it third grade that children learn that just because you say something it does not mean it is true. You need to support what you say more than “just because” “because I said so. “

I did. YOu cut it. So, that's the end of that.

 

[Correll]

I think you mean invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament because I am right in what I explained.


And you prove yourself to be a liar once again because I did not say “ the invasion of (Kuwait) had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament. You lie. Please stop for your own good and to avoid future dumb wars.

I wrote

It did not matter in March 2003 that Iraq had invaded Kuwait 13 year’s earlier. It did not matter because The US policy was that SH could stay in power if he allowed inspections.

To a specific end “it did not matter” and I explain why it did not matter.

But you can’t refute my point so you lie that I wrote the invasion of KUWAIT had nothing to do with WMDS/disarmament.

NOTHING TO DO WITH?? you lying Trump voter.. WHERE Did YOU GET That?

It did not matter Nothing to do with they have entirely different meanings / you are a liar.

Sorry I thought you had just misspoke.


ok so you were really discounting the fact that Saddam had a history of launching wars of conquest in the past, in regards to crafting policy to contain him.



WOW.


Err, I disagree. Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is. Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.

 

[Correll]

I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,

W made 1441 US policy until he saw I believe that Iraq was cooperating and then made up intelligence that he says left no doubt that IRAQ was hiding the most lethal Weapons ever devised and told the inspectors to leave rather than confirm or debunk W’s make believe Intel.

Sure you did. I brought up context and you said, that was considered in the crafting of the resolution, so you don't get to.... consider it more, or something like that.


Your thinking is hard to follow at times.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I did not say US actions or thinking is limited when working with the UN. You lie.,

Sure you did.

Then post it where you think I said it. I said nothing of the sort. You are a liar.


Half a million Iraqis would not be dead if US actions were limited by the UN in March 2003.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ok so you were really discounting the fact that Saddam had a history of launching wars of conquest in the past, in regards to crafting policy to contain him.

You are a liar. I did not discount anything by stating a fact that Iraq was not the invading nation in March 2003. The USA was the only country invading another country in March 2003. That is a fact.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Err, I disagree. Wars of conquest is a huge red flag, into what type of person and leader a head of state is. Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.

This ain’t about that. SH was a rotten no good human being. There is no disagreement on that fact.

I’m saying OffIcial US POLICY during five months ramp up to war was working with the UN and according to UNSC 1441 and in that framework it did not matter the type of person that SH was. That included his decision to invade Kuwait in 1990.

That is a fact.

W drafted this paragraph in 1441 and pressured the UN to pass it:

**** 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations


Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy2

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;


They acknowledged all the violations by Iraq in the text if 1441.


The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Just because it's been a while since they launched one, doesn't mean they are not dangerous warmongers.

You are infested with Kirsten

I never said SH was not a dangerous warmonger. You are a liar.

SH was a dangerous warmonger in 2002 to be made less dangerous when left in power without WMD. That was W’s US Policy from September 2002 through March 17 2003.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

i f we are working WITH them, then there is not requirement that their resolution requires that we stop thinking about the context or events that may or may not have been considered in the writing of the resolution.

WTF? Of course there is no requirement in 1441 that the US stop thinking….

The US drafted 1441. it was US policy in writing.

 

[HenryBHough]

War?

No.

A one-time-only multi-warhead aerial cleansing by fire of both Iraq and Iran?

HELL YES.

Make a big, deep glass-lined hole. Seed the clouds to cause rain to fill the awaiting lakebed and solve the Middle East's water problems at the same time. Besides, no honest eco-freak could disagree that reducing the world's population would do wonders for the pipe dreams of "Saving The Planet". Almost as much as if they themselves were voluntary participants.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

So, all you talk about reasons to ignore context, was just not true.

I never talked about reasons to ignore context. You are a liar.