Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

Either way, doesn't really change anything.

There was only one pre-invasion justification for war. It was WMD not nation building.

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW reply to #3278: You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building. POST#3279

You’ve been lying you this time. The case for war cannot be made five weeks after it was started.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW wrote: I’m still looking for Correll ‘s explanation for why he called me a liar. POST#3302

NFBW wrote: The AUMF is explicit. W was authorized to use military force to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. WMD resolutions are the only relevant ones. POST#3302

NFBW wrote: There is no UNSC Resolution to conduct a Gingrich/Krauthammer Nation building experiment in Iraq. POST#3302

Correll wrote: If you want to find and post the text of the authorization for discussion purposes, I will take a look at it, and we can discuss it. POST#1505

NFBW wrote: I did, but Correll avoids discussing it. POST#3302

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

Correll wrote: He loves to wallow in the emotion of the loss of the war, but he just dismisses the human cost of Saddam being in power, or his wars. POST#1542

Correll wrote: If the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMDs, as we know is the case, then focusing solely on the hunt for the wmds, in the timing of the war, is misleading at best. POST#1548

NFBW wrote: I really don’t see a coherent point in the above. If Correll can explain it I will respond. POST#3302

Correll wrote: You are ignoring the formal authorization for war, to focus on informal off the cuff comments. POST#1554

NFBW wrote: Every stated reason was not a case for war according to W’s determination as he was expected to do as laid out in the authorization. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: What was W “waiting to hear” before determining that war would be necessary other than WMD POST#1555

Correll wrote: A politicians public words do not trump formal policy positions laid out in formal government authorizations. POST #1556

NFBW wrote: I’m not ignoring it. The AUMF was designed around the idea that it would force Iraq to let inspectors in and it worked. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: The AUMF authorized W to make a determination in the future. POST #1557

NFBW wrote: W revealed his determination that ONLY real WMD would justify war. No other reason rose to the level of necessity for war. And that makes sense. POST #1557


Correll wrote: His personal, informal statement does not trump the formal carefully crafted full justification for the war, laid out in the Authorization. POST#1558

NFBW wrote: The AUMF didn’t set a policy to start a war for any of those reasons listed. When it was voted on it did not authorize disarming IRAQ of his WMDs Unless W determined that it was necessary in the future. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: THAT is exactly the policy that W was discussing at the news conference on March 6. He was making his determination known to the world that he still preferred to disarm Iraq peacefully. POST #1559

NFBW wrote: The UN Security Council and UN are referenced in the AUMF that gave W the opportunity to choose war if necessary. POST#2058

NFBW wrote: W was given the authorization to solely determine the case for war in the AUMF that was passed in October 2002. POST#3256

The AUMF is worded exactly that way;

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

NFBW wrote: There is no ambiguity on this fact. POST#3256


NFBW wrote: And then, Bush made the sole determination after March 6 to start a war in Iraq because he told us that SH was hiding WMD from the inspectors. POST#3256

NFBW asked: Why is it not true? POST#3225

Correll wrote: Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you. POST #3228

NFBW wrote: Not according to the AUMF and the determination that W made. POST#3302

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW wrote: IF Correll seeks to call me a liar he owes it to the readers
to explain precisely and define what I’m saying here is not true POST#3303:

NFBW wrote: The AUMF is explicit. W was authorized to use military force to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. WMD resolutions are the only relevant ones. POST#3302

NFBW wrote and posts language from the actual AUMF as passed: Why POST#3302 is indisputably TRUE!!!!

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

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

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I NEVER supported that war. When that American soldier on the central square in Baghdad climbed the giant statue of Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein and had his tank buddies pull it down, all my workmates — and 99% of Americans — were cheering.

I had that old “sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.” I knew we had lost already. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and “miracles” back in Vietnam War days.

 

[Correll]

There was only one pre-invasion justification for war. It was WMD not nation building.

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW reply to #3278: You say the case for war for you was made on tv when KRAUTHAMMER and GINGRICH sold you on the brilliance of experimental nation building. POST#3279

You’ve been lying you this time. The case for war cannot be made five weeks after it was started.

Or, I made a mistake in remembering the order of events after nearly twenty years. Since, I'm not an autistic freak.


You know I looked at that link, for once, and I think that was the one, I was remembering. The woman looks very familiar.


Like I said, this doesn't change much, for me. My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned.


You though? THis changes everything.


Your purpose here, has been to assign malignant motives to your enemies.


As you have done since the beginning, calling me a "bloodthirst monster" for supporting the invasion and nation building.


But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.


Thus, we see that EVERYTIME, you decided that this or that, "proved" that I was a "bloodthirsty monster" or "didn't care about the innocent civilians" or some such bullshit,


that you were wrong.


I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set.


I await to see what bizarre excuse you come up with, to avoid learning ANYTHING from this series of mistakes and failures on your part.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Your purpose here, has been to assign malignant motives to your enemies.

You are a liar. I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq.

Your excuse for lying about the ramp up to war in Iraq being a lack of recall is not an excuse when we are trying to discuss knowable facts. If I don’t recall something I look it up, if you don’t want to be a liar you should do the same.

When you decide to discuss facts instead of motive and presentation let us know.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned.

There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why.

Your brain must be very clean. You have been washing it of truth facts and reality for twenty years about Iraq.


Ignorance is no excuse for being a liar.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli.

I was just about to tell you that it does not appear to me that you supported the invasion. I don’t think you opposed it either.

Those that I have come across that truly supported the invasion continue the big lie as struth does, that the WMD was found. Some say it’s circling around in the ocean somewhere on secret ship. Or buried in a remote spot in the desert in Syria. But those warmonger liars stick with the basic lying about WMD and most never gave a rats ass about nation building. The WMD was there and we found some. And they water down W’s full and alone responsibility for deciding to end inspections and start a war by repeating a less than half truth that Biden and HRC voted for war.

They voted to get the UN involved and see if war could be avoided.

W dirty double crossed the Dems.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set.

Like most Americans I supported the nation building after the demonic moronic decision was made to use warfare to look for WMD instead of letting the inspectors finish it peacefully.

Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 mikes away.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: I only bought into the nation building agenda AFTER the invasion, and AFTER the course was already set. POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Therefore, the truth is, this point no longer stands. POST#3310

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case. And they won. POST#741.

NFBW wrote: There was no national debate that included nation building as a justification for war, was there? POST#3310

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I’m here to record the truth about the ramp up to war in Iraq thanks to about the only truthful utterance DJT ever said. We were lied into the invasion of Iraq.

Your excuse for lying about the ramp up to war in Iraq being a lack of recall is not an excuse when we are trying to discuss knowable facts. If I don’t recall something I look it up, if you don’t want to be a liar you should do the same.

When you decide to discuss facts instead of motive and presentation let us know.

Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything.

Your inability to understand why people who voted for Bush could years later voter for Trump despite the two of them not being in agreement on the Iraq War, is about you being an extraordinarily rigid and unimaginative thinker.


It has nothing to do with us.


And your motive is OBVSIOUSLY to assign malignant motives to your enemies, as part of a your larger desire to spread hate and bigotry and division.

 

[Correll]

There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why.

Your brain must be very clean. You have been washing it of truth facts and reality for twenty years about Iraq.


Ignorance is no excuse for being a liar.

Adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, and then attacking the new statement you have thus created, is a form of a lie and a the logical fallacy of STRAWMAN.


Those are not the actions of a good faith debater, nor the actions of someone interested in the Truth, OR, someone who is confident about their own position.

 

[Correll]

I was just about to tell you that it does not appear to me that you supported the invasion. I don’t think you opposed it either.

Those that I have come across that truly supported the invasion continue the big lie as struth does, that the WMD was found. Some say it’s circling around in the ocean somewhere on secret ship. Or buried in a remote spot in the desert in Syria. But those warmonger liars stick with the basic lying about WMD and most never gave a rats ass about nation building. The WMD was there and we found some. And they water down W’s full and alone responsibility for deciding to end inspections and start a war by repeating a less than half truth that Biden and HRC voted for war.

They voted to get the UN involved and see if war could be avoided.

W dirty double crossed the Dems.

One of my best friends believed that the wmds, were trucked away. He seemed sincere in that belief. Why to you call them liars?


Your constant and consistent assumption that anyone that disagrees with you, when you consider the evidence to be clear, to be a "liar" ignores the fact that people can be very wrong despite any amount of evidence.


Have you never noticed this before?


It makes you look either completely dishonest, or completely ignorant.

 

[Correll]

Like most Americans I supported the nation building after the demonic moronic decision was made to use warfare to look for WMD instead of letting the inspectors finish it peacefully.

Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 mikes away.

In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it.


What you said there, boils down to nothing but your personal opinion that war is terrible and your desire to smear SOME people.


I agree that war is terrible. I do not support your desire to smear SOME people.


That is just you being a partisan hack, and working to spread bigotry, hate and division.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it. POST#3314

NFBW wrote: I was not referring to supporting the invasion of IRAQ in March 2003 to disarm Iraq of the threat of WMD. I specifically wrote “ to conduct a nation building experiment”. Could you please re-read the following and reply on the specific language that was used regarding the nation building experiment that you mistakenly believed all this time was the case for war. POST#3315

NFBW wrote: Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 miles away. POST#3309

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: In all wars, (barring those that lead to immediate invasions of the country in question), the vast majority of the people that support the war, are not the ones going to fight it. POST#3314

NFBW wrote: I was not referring to supporting the invasion of IRAQ in March 2003 to disarm Iraq of the threat of WMD. I specifically wrote “ to conduct a nation building experiment”. Could you please re-read the following and reply on the specific language that was used regarding the nation building experiment that you mistakenly believed all this time was the case for war. POST#3315

NFBW wrote: Its a worse kind of warmonger that would support killing half a million IRAQIS to conduct a nation building experiment on them from the safety of you couch 6000 miles away. POST#3309

Part of the case for war.


Your weird autistic belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons, is very weird.


I understand that being autistic that you don't FEEL how normal people feel, but you should be able to intellectually KNOW that you don't get it, and trust those of us who do.


You can try to above post again, but without that important bit done right.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll Wrote: Your weird autistic belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons, is very weird. POST#3316

NFBW wrote: I am referring to your original support for nation building as the case for war, which was based on your incompetent and flawed memory of the sequence of events in 2002 and 2003. POST#3317

NFBW wrote: I have no such belief that people make decisions based on simple or singular reasons. Why are you lying about me again? POST#3317


NFBW wrote in POST#3317: You put it in writing:

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

WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. POST#766

Correll wrote Jul 17, 2020: I was initially skeptical but the idea of creating a liberal democratic state in the middle of the Middle East as an Ideological Pushback against Radical Islam eventually convinced me. POST#186

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639


Correll Wrote: 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. POST#703

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually I did NOT support the invasion, and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305

NFBW wrote. I want to be sure I understand you correctly. POST#3318

You are saying you did not support the invasion because the WMD argument was not convincing.

You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war.

Is that correct?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: My position has always been about the arguments made for the war and their validity and the goals of the war, and the lessons to be learned. POST#3305

NFBW wrote: Your position has changed drastically over the course of this thread. The reason it changed you have confessed. - It was faulty memory on your part. POST#3319

NFBW wrote - POST#3319 My position has not changed over the course of the thread. This is it in a nutshell:

NFBW wrote: There was no argument by anyone in the US Government that nation building was a consideration to justify war. My post 3303 Explains exactly why. POST#3307

NFBW wrote: I added nothing to any of Correll ‘s statements, but we get this nonsense in his recent Post#3312.

Correll wrote: Adding qualifiers to someone else's statement, and then attacking the new statement you have thus created, is a form of a lie and a the logical fallacy of STRAWMAN. POST#3312

NFBW wrote: Here is the essence of the truth that Correll Is continuing to avoid. POST#3319

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

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

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

Correll wrote: Because there were other reasons. As repeatedly and constantly explained to you. POST #3228

NFBW wrote: Not according to the AUMF and the determination that W made. POST#3302

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll can you explain why where or how ‘nation building Iraq’ was listed in the AUMF when there were no UNSC Resolutions, regarding nation building in Iraq.

NFBW POST#3320 Here is key language:

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 --

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

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303