Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

My God, I found a real Catholic NeoCon warmonger, WhoDaThunkitt?

.but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution

I can say that because Blix and the UNSC firmly agreed Saddam was complying at a pace sufficiently in order to peacefully complete peaceful inspections and the POPE himself also said so and agreed with continued inspections. ......But what do you care about what he says anyway? You were all hopped up with all the Bush white evangelical Protestant Christian nationalists egging Bush to kick some Muslim ass after the 9/11/01 attack.

“War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations,” John Paul proclaimed on Jan. 13, 2003, even as he was sending his emissaries to Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations to lobby for peaceful negotiations. “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”​

The Pope Pleaded. We Didn't Listen.​

The pope pointedly rejected such alarmist arguments and instead, on the eve of the invasion, endorsed the European proposal to rely on U.N. inspectors in Iraq and to provide a greater role for U.N. peacekeepers as an alternative to U.S. occupation of a crucial Muslim nation. “At this hour of international worry, we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he said, rejecting a rush to war.​

I bet this is your cup of tea on invading a Muslim Country by cutting off the peaceful inspections process:

The Land letter was a letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.​

​

​

The letter asserted that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq met the criteria of traditional 'just war' theory because:​

• such an action would be defensive
• the intent is found to be just and noble. The United States does not intend to 'destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq'
• it is a last resort because Saddam Hussein had a record of attacking his neighbors, of the 'headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction' and their use against his own people, and harboring al-Qaeda terrorists
• it is authorized by a legitimate authority, namely the United States
• it has limited goals
• it has reasonable expectation of success
• non-combatant immunity would be observed
• it meets the criteria of proportionality—the human cost on both sides would be justified by the intended outcome

You are something else indeed.


And now these same white Evangelicals agreed with Trump - Bush Lied to invade Iraq mostly for them.

The world is absurd sometimes.

 

[struth]

My God, I found a real Catholic NeoCon warmonger, WhoDaThunkitt?

.but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution

I can say that because Blix and the UNSC firmly agreed Saddam was complying at a pace sufficiently and the POPE himself also said so and agreed with continued inspections. . But what do you care about what he says anyway? You were all hopped up with all the Bush white evangelical Protestant Christian nationalists egging Bush to kick some Muslim ass after the 9/11/01 attack.

I bet this is your cup of tea on invading a Muslim Country by cutting of the peaceful inspections process

The Land letter was a letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.​

​

​

The letter asserted that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq met the criteria of traditional 'just war' theory because:​

• such an action would be defensive
• the intent is found to be just and noble. The United States does not intend to 'destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq'
• it is a last resort because Saddam Hussein had a record of attacking his neighbors, of the 'headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction' and their use against his own people, and harboring al-Qaeda terrorists
• it is authorized by a legitimate authority, namely the United States
• it has limited goals
• it has reasonable expectation of success
• non-combatant immunity would be observed
• it meets the criteria of proportionality—the human cost on both sides would be justified by the intended outcome

You are something else indeed.

Where am I being a warmonger?

I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.

These are simple facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.

You have not provided backup for such a ridiculous so called FACT because it is impossible to be a fact. The UNSC never agreed with Bush and Blair to put a deadline on compliance so there was no non compliance, period.

That is not a fact. it is not the truth, you are calling the Pope a liar, flat out denying the Truth and denying all objective and even subjective reality.

You are a warmonger because by March 17 when Bush decided to invade, Saddam Hussein had been proactively cooperating according to Dr. Blix

There were a few outstanding issues mostly to do with chemical weapons and agents that were unilaterally destroyed immediately following the first Gulf War.

....and you still believe after witnessing hundreds of thousands of human beings killed and wounded and so much death and destruction and injury that he was justified to put an end to peaceful inspections because of some paperwork and testing issues on long destroyed chemical agents that would take a few months to resolve.

You are actually a sicko when you ask this:

Where am I being a warmonger?

 

[struth]

I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.

You have not provided backup for such a ridiculous so called FACT because it is impossible to be a fact. The UNSC never agreed with Bush and Blair to put a deadline on compliance si there was no non compliance, period.

That is not a fact. it is not the truth, you are calling the Pope a liar, flat out denying the Truth and denying all objective and even subjective reality.

You are a warmonger because by March 17 when Butch decided to invade Saddam Hussein had been proactively cooperating according to Dr. Blix

There a few were outstanding issues mostly to do with chemical weapons and agents that were unilateral destroyed immediately following the first Gulf War.

and you still believe after witnessing hundreds of thousands human beings killed and so much death and destruction and injury that he was justified to put an end to peaceful inspections because of some paperwork testing issues on long destroyed chemical agents would take a few months to resolve.

You are actually a sicko when you ask this:

Where am I being a warmonger?

How am I a sicko now? Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?

I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix. Direct quotes.

and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince. I am not sure what else you want.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince.

You are a liar. The UN Security Council never never never ever even thought about voting that Hussein’s regime was not in compliance with UNSC 1441 Because it did not have a deadline date.period. Saddam Hussein was not required under 1441 to be in compliance with all his UNSC security council resolutions by March 17, 2003.

You are a warmonger for rejecting your Pope!s wisdom on a matter of Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix. Direct quotes.

nothing that supports your claim that
The UN voted IRAQ wasn't in complaince with 1441.

You cant because they never did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?

The Iraq War was a success...

What was the reason that Bush decided to kick peaceful UN Inspectors out and invade?

To remove WMD that was being hidden from the inspections.

There was no WMD in Iraq being hidden from UN Inspections.

We know it for a fact. Yet you call the invasion a success.

It was not a success. It cannot be a success because its purpose was flawed wrong and untrue.

When you call it a success you are glorifying war for war’s sake. You are a warmonger in that context.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The only liars are the Dems suggesting they were against the Iraq War.

Biden on February 5 2003 believed Powell’s UN speech at the UN and I fault him for believing all of those lies.

but in this video as early as early February 2003 Biden was confident that if all those things that Powell said were true BUSH could get a second UNSC resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq. BUDEN said that was necessary because we were going to be in IRAQ for a long long time and it was going to cost billions and billions of dollars and he didn’t think the American people understood that.

I need to remind you that most of the evidence that Paul gave on February 5 was reviewed by the inspectors and none of it proved to be true. Biden didn’t catch that shame on him.

Iraqi Weapons Violations

Senator Biden spoke to reporters about Secretary Powell's report to the Security Council on Iraqi violations of United Nations resolutions. He called on the Security Council to remain united in its pursuit of Iraqi disarmament and called on President Bush to bring any case he had for military...

www.c-span.org

 

[MadChemist]

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

Republican attitudes on Iraq trip up GOP candidates

Was the Iraq war the right thing to do or the wrong thing? Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.

www.msnbc.com

I am sorry....by pathetic liars you are referencing the democrats who voted for the war ?

I was against it before it ever started.

If you were a banker....I can't imagine the mess.

 

[struth]

The only liars are the Dems suggesting they were against the Iraq War.

Biden on February 5 2003 believed Powell’s UN speech at the UN and I fault him for believing all of those lies.

but in this video as early as early February 2003 Biden was confident that if all those things that Powell said were true BUSH could get a second UNSC resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq. BUDEN said that was necessary because we were going to be in IRAQ for a long long time and it was going to cost billions and billions of dollars and he didn’t think the American people understood that.

I need to remind you that most of the evidence that Paul gave on February 5 was reviewed by the inspectors and none of it proved to be true. Biden didn’t catch that shame on him.

Iraqi Weapons Violations

Senator Biden spoke to reporters about Secretary Powell's report to the Security Council on Iraqi violations of United Nations resolutions. He called on the Security Council to remain united in its pursuit of Iraqi disarmament and called on President Bush to bring any case he had for military...

www.c-span.org

Xiden was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...

Biden Pushed for Saddam Hussein to Be Taken Down Five Years Before Iraq War

The former vice president's comments in 1998 have resurfaced as he faces criticism over his support for the 2003 Iraq War.

www.newsweek.com

Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.

"But that doesn't guarantee, if these sanctions are in place, that the program's going to be anything other than curtailed. Doesn't guarantee we're going to be able to stop it."

"I think you and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam's at the helm, there's no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction," Biden added

He later said the only way to oust Saddam Hussein would be to "require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot, in the desert taking the son of a— taking Saddam down."

"You know it and I know it, so I think we should not kid ourselves here," the senator added.

 

[struth]

Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?

The Iraq War was a success...

What was the reason that Bush decided to kick peaceful UN Inspectors out and invade?

To remove WMD that was being hidden from the inspections.

There was no WMD in Iraq being hidden from UN Inspections.

We know it for a fact. Yet you call the invasion a success.

It was not a success. It cannot be a success because its purpose was flawed wrong and untrue.

When you call it a success you are glorifying war for war’s sake. You are a warmonger in that context.

Saying Bush had a success there doesn't mean that I was for the war. It's just highlighting the obvious.

The reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution and Bush, along with other nations moved to enforce the Resoltuion.

There were a number of other reasons that Xiden, Clinton and the rest of Congress sited as well...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#:~:text=The%20resolution%20authorized%20President%20Bush,United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Resolutions

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

'These are all legit reasons to go. I didn't say I supported going though.

With that said, it was a success for Bush because he met the goal, a removal of Saddam, and left the next admin, a free and stable Iraq.

Xiden and Obama really just screwed the pooch there though. It would have been a much bigger success had we had competent leadership following Bush, that could have leveaged the success, which sprung the Arab Spring, to a success as well....but we didn't

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Biden said Bush invaded Iraq too soon and without the world ....

You say Biden...

was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...

You left the full truth out. Why?

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval

Read this: JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
Thursday, July 31, 2003

For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon, we went to war with too few troops, we went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf

We authorized the President to use force. Congress did it to give him a strong hand to play at the United Nations. The idea was quite simple. We would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, and what we would be saying is, "Saddam disarm or be disarmed." In doing so, we hoped to make war less likely. If Saddam failed to listen and failed, we would act, but we would act, we hoped, not alone or not merely with the British.

But the administration, in my view, misplayed that hand. They undercut the Secretary of State, allowing our military strategy to trump our diplomatic strategy. The world was convinced, the world became convinced, in my view, even some of our best friends became convinced that we were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did.

We insulted our allies and the U.N. weapons inspectors somewhat gratuitously, and we failed to be flexible in securing a second U.N. resolution.

For the price of a 30-day delay, I believe we could have gotten a majority, and I think many believe, including those at the State Department, could have gotten a majority-- that's my opinion. No one has told me that--we could have gotten a majority of the Security Council to go along with this.

 

[struth]

Biden said Bush invaded Iraq too soon and without the world ....

You say Biden...

was talking about invading Iraq and removing Saddam...years before the Powell's speech...years before Bush was even in office...

You left the full truth out. Why?

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval

Read this: JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
Thursday, July 31, 2003

For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon, we went to war with too few troops, we went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf

We authorized the President to use force. Congress did it to give him a strong hand to play at the United Nations. The idea was quite simple. We would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, and what we would be saying is, "Saddam disarm or be disarmed." In doing so, we hoped to make war less likely. If Saddam failed to listen and failed, we would act, but we would act, we hoped, not alone or not merely with the British.

But the administration, in my view, misplayed that hand. They undercut the Secretary of State, allowing our military strategy to trump our diplomatic strategy. The world was convinced, the world became convinced, in my view, even some of our best friends became convinced that we were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did.

We insulted our allies and the U.N. weapons inspectors somewhat gratuitously, and we failed to be flexible in securing a second U.N. resolution.

For the price of a 30-day delay, I believe we could have gotten a majority, and I think many believe, including those at the State Department, could have gotten a majority-- that's my opinion. No one has told me that--we could have gotten a majority of the Security Council to go along with this.

The video I showed was clear, and well before 2003...moreover he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.

You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/

Xiden didn't just support the Iraq War, he also supported Serbia, Montenegro, and Libya

Xiden is a warmonger....if you support him you are a warmonger.

Trump is the only President this century to end US involvement in conflicts overseas and not start them

 

[NotfooledbyW]

he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.

There is nothing in it remotely endorsing a ground invasion by US Troops. Don’t you read the crap you throw at the wall. It had nothing to do with the Bush/Republican launched neocon warmonger invasion into Iraq in March 2003 that Bush ordered without UNSC Approval.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/

He didn’t oppose it but he said he would not do it unless we got a second UNSC Resolution to authorize it which means he would not have done it in March 2003 and I take him at his word.

I don’t expect you to understand what taking someone out of the word means.

 

[struth]

he voted for the Iraq Liberation Act in the 90s.

There is nothing in it remotely endorsing a ground invasion by US Troops. Don’t you read the crap you throw at the wall. It had nothing to do with the Bush/Republican launched neocon warmonger invasion into Iraq in March 2003 that Bush ordered without UNSC Approval.

He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops

 

[struth]

You are quoting lying Xiden...the liberal factcheckers even called him a liar for those lieshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/09/bidens-claim-that-he-opposed-iraq-war-moment-it-started/

He didn’t oppose it but he said he would not do it unless we got a second UNSC Resolution to authorize it which means he would not have done it in March 2003 and I take him at his word.

I don’t expect you to understand what taking someone out of the word means.

He said in the 90s to do it....and he did it without a second resolution!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The video I showed was clear, and well before 2003...

It that your response to this?

but in this video as early as early February 2003 Biden was confident that if all those things that Powell said were true BUSH could get a second UNSC resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq.

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval

Read this: JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE]
Thursday, July 31, 200

You have not responded at all.

I try to address every point you make.

You say nothing about Biden’s Call to get UNSC approval before invading in March 2003. It means he wouldn’t have done it without it. Why are you afraid to acknowledge that.

You are lying by omission now.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops

Not using US ground troops and going in to nation build.

you are lying by omission on the content of the 1998 Iraqi liberation act. Lying is what you do well.

And he only endorses ground troops through authorization of the UN. You were lying by omission every time you repeat this one too.

It’s a policy difference from Republicans and the bush administration. And the policy difference matters. So quit the lie.

 

[JoeB131]

A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Here's the thing.

Republicans and a lot of Democrats supported the war because Bush made the threat sound a lot more urgent than it was. A lot on the left hoped the war would happen, be over quickly and then they could hammer Bush on the economy.

There really were no good guys on that political fight.