Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983.

NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll - now that you found out that you actually did not support the invasion into Iraq in March 2003 to do nation building - and you said in POST#766 that you found the WMD argument at the time to be unconvincing, - was W wrong to wage war against Iraq because he decided war was the only way to enforce UNSC WMD resolutions with regard to Iraq? POST#3321

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: 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. POST#3306

Correll wrote: Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything. POST#3311

NFBW wrote: Actually DJT is extremely relevant from Post One to this one. POST#3322

The Banker: I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. POST #1

The Banker: I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war. POST #1

The Banker: Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure. POST #1

NFBW wrote: Tell me, Correll did you vote for an unpatriotic, traitor, BAGHDAD BOB, snd SH sympathizer when you voted for DJT knowing he, like me - calls the decision to invade Iraq a bad idea and huge disaster based on lies. When a former President adds weight to the cause of telling the truth about the ramp up to invading Iraq, that former president is highly relevant you see.. POST#3322

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them. POST#3294

NFBW wrote: I reject what you are saying at this time that is not true. POST#3323

NFBW wrote: I reject your lie that nation building was a case or justification for invading Iraq. That rejection of your lies is not based on hindsight. It is based on the language in the Iraq AUMF where it says W’s determination to start a war must be based on enforcing relevant UNSC Resolutions. Nation Building was not a UNSC RESOLUTION. POST#3323

NFBW wrote: SAME WITH YOUR LIE THAT SH continued to provoke the US after 1441. That was an obvious and knowable fact at the time. POST#3323

 

[Correll]

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


......

EVERYTIME, you post dismissing all other arguments and insisting that WMDs, were the sole reason for war, that is the argument you are making.


D'uh.

 

[Correll]

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?

Nothing I said in any way indicates that. Did you "see" me write anything like that? Normally I would not ask someone to go look for a quote on such a minor point..


But, your constant difficulty relating to normal people, normally, makes this relevant.


And you seem to like digging though past posts looking for shit, so...


Please post an example of a something you think I wrote, that indicates the point you asked about above.

 

[Correll]

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

Do you remember recently, when you denied that you argue that people make decisions based on singular reasons?


I'm curious. Are you able to understand why I bring that up now? Or are you so autistic that you can't make the painfully obvious connection?

 

[dblack]

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq.

Ron Paul

 

[Correll]

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

As that was never my argument, I see no reason to defend it.


I respectfully decline your offer of joining you in playing with your delusion.


:Hint: Please to not pretend that this means I am dropping my ACTUAL argument regarding nation building. You have issues, but don't use those issues to justify bullshit tactics.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983.

NFBW wrote: Just wondering Correll - now that you found out that you actually did not support the invasion into Iraq in March 2003 to do nation building - and you said in POST#766 that you found the WMD argument at the time to be unconvincing, - was W wrong to wage war against Iraq because he decided war was the only way to enforce UNSC WMD resolutions with regard to Iraq? POST#3321

Too early to tell. Ask me again in 50 years, when we can see how the Iraq Nation Building experiment works out.

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: 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. POST#3306

Correll wrote: Donald Trump having an opinion on the war is irrelevant to just about everything. POST#3311

NFBW wrote: Actually DJT is extremely relevant from Post One to this one. POST#3322

The Banker: I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. POST #1

The Banker: I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war. POST #1

The Banker: Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure. POST #1

NFBW wrote: Tell me, Correll did you vote for an unpatriotic, traitor, BAGHDAD BOB, snd SH sympathizer when you voted for DJT knowing he, like me - calls the decision to invade Iraq a bad idea and huge disaster based on lies. When a former President adds weight to the cause of telling the truth about the ramp up to invading Iraq, that former president is highly relevant you see.. POST#3322

When Trump shot his mouth off about the Iraq War, to me it came across as the off the cuff remarks of a man that never gave it any real thought.


So, I voted for him based on his pro-American trade and immigration positions.


His opinion on a decision that was long past before he even got into politics was not relevant to me, or, imo, very many voters.


IF Trump had made his opposition to the war, and more importantly his negative assumptions about the supporters of the war, central to his campaign, as you have done in this thread,


THEN voting for him, would have been voting for an Anti-American Traitor, who's goal was to spread hate and division.


You really, are being very odd, in making such a big deal about this "conflict" you see.




Between the Bush re-election and the Trump election, events and times had changed. People that supported an interventionist policy at ONE time, can choose to support a NON-interventionist candidate at another time.


And it does not indicate any ill intent or really, much of anything.


If you want to make so point about that supposed conflict, you need to start asking questions about why hte people who voted for intervention under Bush, later voted against it under Trump.


Have you made a bunch of self serving assumptions about that, that you have not shared, but are using as a foundation for your attacks on people?



If so, share those assumptions now. Make your point. AND, ask some questions to support them you autistic jerk.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: You are trying to tell ME, what I thought at the time, and REJECTING, my responses because you don't agree with them. POST#3294

NFBW wrote: I reject what you are saying at this time that is not true. POST#3323

NFBW wrote: I reject your lie that nation building was a case or justification for invading Iraq. That rejection of your lies is not based on hindsight. It is based on the language in the Iraq AUMF where it says W’s determination to start a war must be based on enforcing relevant UNSC Resolutions. Nation Building was not a UNSC RESOLUTION. POST#3323

NFBW wrote: SAME WITH YOUR LIE THAT SH continued to provoke the US after 1441. That was an obvious and knowable fact at the time. POST#3323

And again you are pushing the idea that people make decisions based on singular reasons.

A point you just denied.


Like I said, you are the one that is widely inconsistent.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“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

Did you "see" me write anything like that?

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

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

If one of the “debated” pro-war arguments was unconvincing to you at the time, why would you support a war based on that argument?

And another “debated” justification for war was not a pre-war argument according to you, and you said you just figured out that you did not support the war based on nation building, so again nation building us clearly out, and why would you support invading Iraq to disarm the dictatorship based in suspicion that WMD was being hidden from the inspectors that there disarming Iraq peacefully.


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

 

[Correll]

“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



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

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

If one of the “debated” pro-war arguments was unconvincing to you at the time, why would you support a war based on that argument?

And another “debated” justification for war was not a pre-war argument according to you, and you said you just figured out that you did not support the war based on nation building, so again nation building us clearly out, and why would you support invading Iraq to disarm the dictatorship based in suspicion that WMD was being hidden from the inspectors that there disarming Iraq peacefully.


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

In your previous post, you asked me to if I was admitting that the nation building argument was NOT part of the debate for the war, before the invasion.



I replied correctly that I have said nothing like that.


Now you are moving the goal post to asking me...What the hell are you even asking me?


No matter. I asked you to support your odd claim that I had made a comment that nation building was not part of the argument for war prior to the invasion.


DId you go looking and not find anything and decided to post the above word salad in an attempt to distract from that instead of admitting your fault?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

In your previous post, you asked me to if I was admitting that the nation building argument was NOT part of the debate for the war, before the invasion.

Here is exactly what I asked you to verify if my understanding was correct:

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

NFBW wrote. You are saying you did not support the invasion because the WMD argument was not convincing. POST#3318

NFBW wrote. You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war. POST#3318

NFBW wrote. Is that correct? POST#3318


NFBW wrote: Please add the words “for you” to the nation building question. thank you. POST#3334

If you do not know how to do that let me help you.

NFBW asked: You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war for you? POST#3334

Is that correct now?

 

[Correll]

Here is exactly what I asked you to verify if my understanding was correct:

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

NFBW wrote. You are saying you did not support the invasion because the WMD argument was not convincing. POST#3318

NFBW wrote. You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war. POST#3318

NFBW wrote. Is that correct? POST#3318


NFBW wrote: Please add the words “for you” to the nation building question. thank you. POST#3334

If you do not know how to do that let me help you.

NFBW asked: You are saying that you now realize that nation building was not an argument or justification for war for you? POST#3334

Is that correct now?

There are several points i want to make here.

1. My position remains the same. The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war. I was wrong about the date of the specific making of the argument that convinced me, but it remains the truth.

2. That you think that talking about your disagreement with my view, can CHANGE THE PAST, as shown by your question, is literally insane of you.


3. and I want to state again, we are discussing my past thoughts and positions. YOUR DISAGREEING WITH MY CONCLUSIONS IS IRRELEVANT.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Correll ’s forked tongue!!!!!

“actually I did NOT support the invasion@ POST#3305

1. My position remains the same. The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war.

NFBW wrote: I supported the war too based upon the mistake leading to the disaster already having been made. POST#3336

I’m asking you about pre-invasion support.

Will you make up your fucking mind?


You wrote that you did not support the invasion after all?

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

 

[Correll]

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Correll ’s forked tongue!!!!!

“actually I did NOT support the invasion@ POST#3305



NFBW wrote: I supported the war too based upon the mistake leading to the disaster already having been made. POST#3336

I’m asking you about pre-invasion support.

Will you make up your fucking mind?


You wrote that you did not support the invasion after all?

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

YOu need to try to be clear.


Pre invasion I was skeptical of the WMD argument AND was not convinced by other arguments, UNTIL the case was made by NEwt and Charles together, which I know realize occurred later than I thought, ie after the invasion.


I have been consistent on this. We covered it. What more is there to say about that? Why are you rehashing it?


Do you have a new point to make, or are you just talking in circles for some odd reason?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I have been consistent on this.

Saying you realize you didn’t support the invasion and then later saying that you do support the invasion is not consistent.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: Pre invasion I was skeptical of the WMD argument AND was not convinced by other arguments, UNTIL the case was made by NEwt and Charles together, which I know realize occurred later than I thought, ie after the invasion. POST#3337.

NFBW wrote: If pre-invasion you were in fact skeptical of the WMD argument AND were not convinced by other arguments then as I hear you explain it, you did not support the invasion - going in. POST#3339

NFBW wrote: That is what you are saying in POST#3337.

NFBW wrote: To you, from what you are saying, prior to the invasion you saw no reason, made in the so-called national debate, to invade. POST#3337.

 

[Correll]

Saying you realize you didn’t support the invasion and then later saying that you do support the invasion is not consistent.

What are you talking about? You are confusing yourself.