Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

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

It was about what it was about at the time. What President Bush said or did LATER, did not change what occurred before.


Your pretense of not getting this, is not credible.

 

[dblack]

Nope.

 

[Correll]

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.

I have no concern about those details. Not now, not then. I have told you what my position was on the issue at that time.. Nothing you say is going to change that. Nothing you say CAN change that.

We are discussing the PAST. That you disagree with my opinion that I held at that time, cannot change the fact that I held it.


Do you understand that?

 

[Correll]

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.

That you cut, you dishonest partisan hack.



"when we are discussing MY thoughts and what I would have accepted as proof of credibility?"

 

[whutTHEYsay]

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..

BUT, that does not mean that the debate that went on before, did not happen.

I am not saying the debate about the “dish running away with the spoon” did not happen. Its still where it always was.

In the context of the full paragraphs above what do you think I am telling you in this?


NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

 

[Correll]

I am not saying the debate about the “dish running away with the spoon” did not happen. Its still where it always was.

In the context of the full paragraphs above what do you think In telling you in this?


NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds.


Which changes nothing, nor disagrees with any point I have ever made. So, why are you going on and on about it?


Your attempt to rewrite history so that you can lie about people, is not a legitimate goal.


You are a bad person, a bigot actively working to spread hate and division, to push an agenda, that you won't be honest about, but that you know you cannot sell, without lots of lying.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

We are discussing the PAST. That you disagree with my opinion that I held at that time, cannot change the fact that I held it.

We are discussing this:

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766


You are entitled to believe whatever you believed to be true at the time. You are not entitled to rewrite history and the facts to match the stupid things you say you believed at the time.

I’m entitled to defend the truth and history from reality deniers and outright liars like you and the purpose is to never see our President start a war based on lies like Trump says and sit back and watch half a million innocent people die over a mistake.

Piss and moan about me all you like. I’m not going anywhere.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds.

Which changes nothing, nor disagrees with any point I have ever made. So, why are you going on and on about it?

Your attempt to rewrite history so that you can lie about people, is not a legitimate goal.

You are a bad person, a bigot actively working to spread hate and division, to push an agenda, that you won't be honest about, but that you know you cannot sell, without lots of lying.

Correll has now gone into broken record mode when it becomes obvious he won’t answer point specific questions.

So I’ll continue my point with or without hiim as time permits.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

The FACT that war was avoidable on the one condition of Iraq being disarmed means all the other reasons Correll says were the basis of going to war, cannot be a basis for war when there was going to be no war if disarming of WMD was not involved or if it was seen to be being fully resolved.

What Correll is saying is an impossibility.

I will support this more fully in due time.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

What do you think I am telling you in this?


NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

That as time went on, the discussion became more and more focused on the search for the wmds.

Nope. Its not about the focus of discussions at all.

Its about what was actually happening in real time. And what would happen if Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully. That result would have meant no war.

And there was no other backup case or reasons for war in existence or in the AUMF If Iraq and the inspectors were allowed to disarm Iraq peacefully.

 

[Correll]

We are discussing this:

Correll wrote: 2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. POST#766


You are entitled to believe whatever you believed to be true at the time. You are not entitled to rewrite history and the facts to match the stupid things you say you believed at the time.

I’m entitled to defend the truth and history from reality deniers and outright liars like you and the purpose is to never see our President start a war based on lies like Trump says and sit back and watch half a million innocent people die over a mistake.

Piss and moan about me all you like. I’m not going anywhere.

You have admitted that you are using hindsight as part of your supporting argument.


That is YOU rewriting history.


You are the one "pissing and moaning" about shit no one else cares about anymore. I am the one that "isn't going anywhere".

Although I might actually. I have been getting kinda of busy. If I do drop out, please know that it is only due to real life getting too busy, not being offended by your.... antics, or anything like that. Don't take it personally.

 

[Correll]

Correll has now gone into broken record mode when it becomes obvious he won’t answer point specific questions.

So I’ll continue my point with or without hiim as time permits.

NFBW wrote; “SH can only fail to avoid war if he fails to cooperate on ONLY ONE reason for war with the Inspectors. POST#3187

The FACT that war was avoidable on the one condition of Iraq being disarmed means all the other reasons Correll says were the basis of going to war, cannot be a basis for war when there was going to be no war if disarming of WMD was not involved or if it was seen to be being fully resolved.

What Correll is saying is an impossibility.

I will support this more fully in due time.

I answered your question. I clearly stated what it meant. imo, of course.


I then pointed out that it does not matter and why it does not matter.


How many times do I have to answer your question before you address my answer?

 

[Correll]

Nope. Its not about the focus of discussions at all.

Its about what was actually happening in real time. And what would happen if Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully. That result would have meant no war.

And there was no other backup case or reasons for war in existence or in the AUMF If Iraq and the inspectors were allowed to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Which shows that the WMDs, were a crucial part of the JUSTIFICATION for the war, but not that there were not other reasons or even justifications.


I agreed with all of this months ago. Why are you still whining about it? Is there an additional point that you are trying to make but can't for some odd reason?


WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING POINT? GET TO IT ALREADY. I AM ALREADY MIDDLE AGED. I WANT TO FINISH THIS THREAD BEFORE I DIE.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I answered your question.

You are a liar.

You did not address the key point that there was to be no war under US Iraq policy if Iraq were allowed to be disarmed peacefully. And that meant that all the other arguments, rationales, cases, and or reasons for supporting war, put together or standing alone, were never ever going to be a case for war if WMD was not included or involved.

There was to be no war if IRAQ was allowed to be disarmed peacefully.

You refuse to accept reality.

its not my reality or an opinion about reality- it is reality.

 

[Correll]

You are a liar.

You did not address the key point that there was to be no war under US Iraq policy if Iraq were allowed to be disarmed peacefully. And that meant that all the other arguments, rationales, cases, and or reasons for supporting war, put together or standing alone, were never ever going to be a case for war if WMD was not included or involved.

There was to be no war if IRAQ was allowed to be disarmed peacefully.

You refuse to accept reality.

its not my reality or an opinion about reality- it is reality.

1. I did answer it. Go back and read it. Try to be less emotional.

2. If you put nine one pound weights on a scale and nothing happens, and then you put a TENTH one pound weight on the scale and it suddenly moves, that does not mean that that last weight is the only weight. Your argument is dumb.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Which shows that the WMDs, were a crucial part of the JUSTIFICATION for the war, but not that there were not other reasons or even justifications.

The point is there were no reason or reasons other than disarming Iraq in the scenario that he would not be disarmed peacefully*! for a justification for starting a preemptive war that killed half a million Iraqis.

It is an indisputable fact and firmly grounded in reality that there was to be no war because the dish ran away with the spoon in 1983. There was plenty of supportive conditions for why SH had to be confronted to disarm (he was evil incarnate) or be removed from power but his history of evil never rose to a justification for war as the WMD standing alone did.

You addressed none of that.

*! As stated in the AUMF.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

2. If you put nine one pound weights on a scale and nothing happens, and then you put a TENTH one pound weight on the scale and it suddenly moves, that does not mean that that last weight is the only weight. Your argument is dumb.

If you don’t put the WMD weight on the scale nothing happens ever - there is no war. The nine weights do not move scale

If Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully - the tenth weight does not go on - Nothing happens - there is no war.

You are a dumb ass.

 

[Correll]

The point is there were no reason or reasons other than disarming Iraq in the scenario that he would not be disarmed peacefully*! for a justification for starting a preemptive war that killed half a million Iraqis.
....

That is simply not true. You are trying to rewrite history.

 

[Correll]

If you don’t put the WMD weight on the scale nothing happens ever - there is no war. The nine weights do not move scale

If Iraq was allowed to be disarmed peacefully - the tenth weight does not go on - Nothing happens - there is no war.

You are a dumb ass.

But teh other weights are still there. And are part of the reason the scale moved.


Your saying otherwise is just you stonewalling.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

1. I did answer it.

you are a liar. You have not addressed the reality that under US policy at the time SH stays in power if he was successfully disarmed and there was no other reason to start a war ever mentioned or suggested by anybody except maybe nutcases like you here and there and the PNAC warmongers who figured Iraq would make a nice base for attacking Iran and Syria.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That is simply not true.

What’s true then? Are you saying that US policy was that once Iraq is disarmed peacefully W was authorized to invade Iraq anyway to get the Kuwait art back?

Explain yourself. Based on what?