Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

I didn’t find SH to be credible that he was not hiding WMD until W admitted that he did not have them. So why in the hell are you lying about me now?

Not sure what you are talking about. President Bush did not "admit that" to long after the time period we are discussing.

When W Admitted it I could also accept with every one else that SH was not lying before the invasion.

You lied that I found SH credible prior to the invasion.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If Saddam was truly co-operating, he could have turned over his stock pile of wmds,

No he could not if he did not have any. We found out after the invasion that he did not have any. Your point fell down face-planted in a pile if your own bullshit.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The un inspectors were not credible.

You are a CHENEY anti-UN warmonger so of course you opine that. And since you have demonstrated zero affinity for facts your opinion on that must be discarded from intelligent discussions.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You quoting the UN at me, is like a religious person quoting the bible to a godless lefty.

I’m not quoting the UN at you. I am reminding you that 1441 is a historical document that W had drafted and got approved as official US IRAQ policy. It has the requirement for SH to cooperate laid out and your made up shit requirement is not in it.

Your insistence that SH comply with your special rule is a sign that you are going insane.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You are not disagreeing with me, you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.

What you say means nothing because it is not backed by an explanation as to why you ‘believe’ SH was not cooperating - all you got us that you believe it.

It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.

Do you really believe that if you do not believe something is true - it does not matter if it is true or not?

I wrote you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.

And you responded: “ It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.”

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The case for war was not solely based on wmds.

BUSH43 March 6 2003 “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. *President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference.

Correll what do you think W means when he told reporters that he hoped, “ this can be done peacefully”?

YES or NO. If Iraq could be disarmed “peacefully” would there be an invasion and war that would cause half a million Iraqis to die.

Bitch and moan all you want about the first question, But then could you be so kind as to answer the second question - yes or no?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The case for war was made in the authorization bill. There were many stated reasons, of which wmds, were only one.

You are on record here that the multi-reason case for war was made on the date
that the AUMF was passed in September 2002.

How do you explain US Iraq War/Peace policy a month later when W had a draft written for submission to the UNSC and got it passed unanimously. UNSC RES 1441 says right in it that SH has been granted a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with his WMD disarmament obligations.

All who witnessed the passage and implementation of 1441 understood that immediate and unfettered inspections leading to verification that Iraq was disarmed would leave SH in power which meant war would be avoided.

W understood that and said he favored avoiding war as well.

So Correll there could be no case for war made for one reason or a hundred reasons when US policy becomes one policy aligned with the UNSC that excludes war as a necessary option if inspections resume and are conducted properly.

That means SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors.

There is that precise explanation as to why justification for war in Iraq was centered solely on the threat of WMD remaining under SH’s control. SH could avoid war but he had to be verified compliant on his agreement to be disarmed and with the long term monitoring that was to follow the last round of inspections..

Do you agree Correll ? There was only one reason for war - If SH did not comply under 1441 by failing to take a final opportunity to comply.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

2. AND, that authorization was NOT limited to WMDs

It was limited to whatever W shall determine in the future is the case for war.

WHERAS the little dog laughed to see such a sight and the dish ran away with the spoon:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

As he determines

As he determines

As he determines

As he determines

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Continuing threat

Continuing threat

Continuing threat


(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Relevant Resolutions

Relevant Resolutions

Relevant Resolutions

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions

WHERAS the dish running away with the spoon was not an alternative or parallel case for war unless W Determined that such a thing was a threat to National security…..

It is a fact that W determined after March 6 that SH was hiding the most lethal WMD from inspectors and in accordance with the AUMF, peaceful inspections supported in the AUMF WERE not going to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and therefore war was necessary.

Thus, W’s determination was as far removed from reality as the cow who jumped over the moon.

But W Made removing WMD the sole purpose of the war.

 

[Correll]

No! You attacked this and told lie after lie after lie:

* #3,080
NFBW wrote: The decision to invade a peaceful “at the time” nation should never be based on what warmongers ‘believed’ in total and absurd opposition to all very easily observable reality. post #3080

I’m not going to let you get away with lying about a war that killed half a million Iraqis that you say you support.

YOu are so silly. That I "say" I support?

Do you think I am lying about my support of the invasion, or are you just talking nonsense?


AND, so much stupid spin. That is what people do, when they know that their point is weak. THey try to stuff their posts with emotion and bullshit to try to hide that fact.



My point stands. When you say stupid shit like "what warmongers believe" YOU are changing the topic to MY PERSONAL VIEWS.


And then you whine like a faggot when I respond about what I FUCKING THINK and you have the gall to argue with me, as though you can define what I thought or think.


You are being absurd. You are argued yourself into the worst corner I think I have ever seen and you continue to stonewall.


ALL you have done, is reveal yourself to be a hateful, anti-American bigot, with asperbergers.

 

[Correll]

When W Admitted it I could also accept with every one else that SH was not lying before the invasion.

You lied that I found SH credible prior to the invasion.

We were talking about our views and actions BEFORE the invasion. Now you are citing information that you did not have, ie President Bush's admission, till long after that time period.


When you do shit like this, you are ironically doing the same type of mistake that President Bush did.

You are allowing your emotions and preconceived ideas, to twist your thinking and perceptions to the point you make a mistake.


A hostile person, could take shit like this, when you pretend to not understand the concept of linear time, and present it as evidence that you are completely full of shit or lying, or some such ism or ist, or what have you.


BUT, in reality, you are just being a normal person, ie allowing what you WANT to see, to effect what you actually perceive when you look at, or think back at something.



That you refuse to understand this is normal. Studies have shown that we people are confronted with undeniable proof that they are wrong, that instead of admitting it, they double down.


SO, now, are you going to be normal and refuse to admit your error, or are you going to double down?


President Bush was man enough to admit he was wrong. Are you?

 

[Correll]

No he could not if he did not have any. We found out after the invasion that he did not have any. Your point fell down face-planted in a pile if your own bullshit.

We were talking about our perceptions and thinking PRIOR to the invasion. As I suspected your logic is based on information you did not have at the time.


So, what was your REAL reason for trusting the word of a genocidal mass murderer?

 

[Correll]

You are a CHENEY anti-UN warmonger so of course you opine that. And since you have demonstrated zero affinity for facts your opinion on that must be discarded from intelligent discussions.

Said the man who can't grasp the idea that time flows forward.

The UN inspectors wanted PEACE. They would have been happy to keep the "process" going forever, as long as it prevented war. That made them not credible.

 

[Correll]

I’m not quoting the UN at you. I am reminding you that 1441 is a historical document that W had drafted and got approved as official US IRAQ policy. It has the requirement for SH to cooperate laid out and your made up shit requirement is not in it.

Your insistence that SH comply with your special rule is a sign that you are going insane.

I never claimed that what I would have accepted was in that document. We were talking about why I did not find Saddam credible.


Why are you bringing up some stupid UN document when we are discussing MY thoughts and what I would have accepted as proof of credibility?


My point stands. I did not find Saddam credible. I have explained why. Do you want to address that, or would you like talk some more unrelated shit in the hopes that I will forget that you are not addressing my point?

 

[Correll]

Do you really believe that if you do not believe something is true - it does not matter if it is true or not?

I wrote you are in dishonest denial of the fact that inspections were working with cooperation from the regime from December 2002 through March 17 2003.

And you responded: “ It does not matter whether or not it was true. At the time I did not believe it.”

When we are discussing my views and reasons for supporting the invasion, that is correct.


You have to judge me based on what I knew at the time, even if what I knew or believed was in error.


Is that what this is all about?


You want to rewrite history so that those that supported the war, are presented in history as KNOWINGLY LYING to have a war so that they, a bunch of "white Christian Nationalists" could kill a bunch of "innocent Muslims" because "bloodthirsty warmongers"?


WOW. You are even more dishonest and hateful than I realized. And simpler.


That is a pathetic goal. And quite evil.


I was right, You are just here to spread hate and division.


WHY DO YOU HATE SO MUCH?

 

[Correll]

BUSH43 March 6 2003 “I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. *President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference.

Correll what do you think W means when he told reporters that he hoped, “ this can be done peacefully”?

YES or NO. If Iraq could be disarmed “peacefully” would there be an invasion and war that would cause half a million Iraqis to die.

Bitch and moan all you want about the first question, But then could you be so kind as to answer the second question - yes or no?

Saying that the case for war was not based solely on WMDs, does not mean that the legal JUSTIFICATION for war and/or the political support for the war did not require that portion of the argument.


Seriously Not, when you ask stupid questions like this, you are pretending to be stupid. YOu do realize this, right?


It amazes me how little liberals care about making themselves look, really really stupid. I mean fucking retarded.

 

[Correll]

You are on record here that the multi-reason case for war was made on the date
that the AUMF was passed in September 2002.

How do you explain US Iraq War/Peace policy a month later when W had a draft written for submission to the UNSC and got it passed unanimously. UNSC RES 1441 says right in it that SH has been granted a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with his WMD disarmament obligations.

All who witnessed the passage and implementation of 1441 understood that immediate and unfettered inspections leading to verification that Iraq was disarmed would leave SH in power which meant war would be avoided.

W understood that and said he favored avoiding war as well.

So Correll there could be no case for war made for one reason or a hundred reasons when US policy becomes one policy aligned with the UNSC that excludes war as a necessary option if inspections resume and are conducted properly.

That means SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors.

There is that precise explanation as to why justification for war in Iraq was centered solely on the threat of WMD remaining under SH’s control. SH could avoid war but he had to be verified compliant on his agreement to be disarmed and with the long term monitoring that was to follow the last round of inspections..

Do you agree Correll ? There was only one reason for war - If SH did not comply under 1441 by failing to take a final opportunity to comply.

I do not agree. Indeed, your words show that you do not either. Why did you use the word "centered"?


If there is only ONE reason, an argument doesn't have to be "centered". It rests solely on that reason.


It is when there are multiple reasons that an argument can be thus "centered" so as to resting more strongly on that one argument, AT ONE POINT IN TIME or to get agreement from a specific audience.


BUT, that does not mean that the debate that went on before, did not happen. or that the other reasons, that certain documentation might be "centered one" are not still there, in the minds of people and as policy goals.


I see now why are you so oddly obsessed with this. You to make it all about the WMDs, then twist the presentation of the issue, so that you can pretend that the "bloodthirsty warmongers" had no reason at all for their support of the invasion.


The real take away here is, that you have realized that the TRUTH, is completely useless to you, for making the case for your agenda.


All you have, is lies. You know that what you want is wrong and cannot be supported with the Truth, but you want it anyways.



It must be quite monstrous.



What is your vision for the future of this country?

 

[Correll]

It was limited to whatever W shall determine in the future is the case for war.

WHERAS the little dog laughed to see such a sight and the dish ran away with the spoon:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

As he determines

As he determines

As he determines

As he determines

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Continuing threat

Continuing threat

Continuing threat


(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Relevant Resolutions

Relevant Resolutions

Relevant Resolutions

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

Make his determination that --

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions

WHERAS the dish running away with the spoon was not an alternative or parallel case for war unless W Determined that such a thing was a threat to National security…..

It is a fact that W determined after March 6 that SH was hiding the most lethal WMD from inspectors and in accordance with the AUMF, peaceful inspections supported in the AUMF WERE not going to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and therefore war was necessary.

Thus, W’s determination was as far removed from reality as the cow who jumped over the moon.

But W Made removing WMD the sole purpose of the war.

As time went on, he grew or allowed the debate to become more focused on that issue.


That does not change what went before.


Your desire to rewrite history, based on later events, is quite orwellian.


YOu are quite the bad person.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That does not change what went before.

What went before did not change at all. it was always about what W was going to determine including no war at all.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

t is when there are multiple reasons that an argument can be thus "centered" so as to resting more strongly on that one argument, AT ONE POINT IN TIME or to get agreement from a specific audience.

are you in agreement that the determination that war was required was not made by W in October 2002, or November or December or January 2003 or February or before March 06 2003?

What event or Resolution of an issue was W waiting for all that time? It was mentioned in the AUMF.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Why are you bringing up some stupid UN document

Its a forward looking path on US IRAQ policy that is from a key reference in the AUMF and a key document to all the historical events that took place during the ramp up to war that you support from the moment it was passed.