Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350

Do you ‘remember’a different AUMF that includes nation building as a justification for invading Iraq?

Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.


Your actions make no sense.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.

You are a liar. I am not saying it was the whole of the debate. Nation building did not make the final cut. It was not a legitimate argument for war and invasion. ONLY WHAT was enforceable as a UNSC resolution made the final cut at the end of the debate. IF your argument for war was nation building because you were not convinced that WMD mattered then you list the fucking debate in the end. That’s the fact.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I never said that it was in the Authorization.

Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering.

Just like the Rupert Murdoch argument for war that $20 a barrel oil would be the worlds greatest tax cut would not be considered a legitimate cause for starting a war Nation Building was never ever in contention to be a case, argument ir justification for war.

It actual was a mandatory cost of war because we could not tear down an established government and leave unless we were actually greeted as liberators and the Iraqis had been fully prepared and ready to maintain set up their own government and civil order and govern themselves the day that SH and his regime fell.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war

WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Authorization was the END of the debate on support for the war, not the whole of it.

NFBW wrote: Actually the AUMF was a temporary loss for the Wolfowitz / Cheney / Rumsfeld / PNAC / Correll / white evangelical nationalist Christian / fuck the UN / rush to war / warmongering / NIKE argument to JUST DO IT crowd in October 2092. POST#3365

NFBW wrote: I supported a yes vote by DEMS for the AUMF but it was not at the time considered support for the war unless of course inspections and the disarming of Iraq was not sufficiently resumed. POST#3365

NFBW wrote: Nation building was impossible to be part of the argument for after the AUMF was passed into law. POST#3365

NFBW wrote: There was almost five months of debate on support if war after the AUMF passed. It was ONLY about disarming Iraq of WMD in order to remove the threat of IRAQ WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. POST#3365

NFBW wrote: I doubt you have the mental capacity to recall the reality of what the AUMF did to the overall Iraq debate from October through March. That’s why I am trying to clear it all up for you. POST#3365

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: What are you doing?POST#3356

NFBW wrote: There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words W sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned. POST#3357

Correll wrote: I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363

NFBW wrote: It is not an argument for war if no action is taken to make war based upon that argument. POST#3366

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: WHOOOOOPDEEDEEEDOOO! Your lie is that nation building was an argument for war. War was started to enforce relevant WMD UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq

There was no war launched based on an argument to do nation building. POST#3367

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: Do you recall this being discussed? POST #3359

“The greatest thing that would come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way would be $20 for a barrel of oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.” THE media tycoon that likely had a lot of influence on YOUR brain Correll posed that argument for invading Iraq and killing half a million Iraqis.

is that a legitimate case for war just because it was discussed and the bigger question for you is it your argument that if anybody discussed what any people think about anything about any benefits to come from invading Iraq, are those discussions themselves raised to the level that would cause the US Congress to pass a law to authorize the President to act based on all those random discussions?

Not, I'm obviously a serious thinker on these issues. For you to talk shit like I am "influenced" by some media tycoon, is you being a jerk.


Right up there were you pretend that people making arguments supporting the war, were consciously choosing to kill "a half a million iraqis", which is a lie on many levels.


You are being a dishonest jerk.


is that the only way you can see to support yoru position?

 

[Correll]

You are a liar. I am not saying it was the whole of the debate. Nation building did not make the final cut. It was not a legitimate argument for war and invasion. ONLY WHAT was enforceable as a UNSC resolution made the final cut at the end of the debate. IF your argument for war was nation building because you were not convinced that WMD mattered then you list the fucking debate in the end. That’s the fact.

"Making the final cut", your words, admits that there were other arguments that were part of the debate.


That is the point you have been denying, for reasons that are murky at best, and pure evil at worst.

 

[Correll]

Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering.

.....

With all due respect Not, what you just claimed there, was retarded.


I admitted no such thing.

 

[Correll]

WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon.

Now you are adding additional and very subjective qualifiers, a sure sign that you realized that your position was absurd.


But you lack the moral courage to admit it.


Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid.


And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions.


Not that you have admitted that.



Wally.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NFBW wrote: WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon. POST#3364

Correll wrote: Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote: Even the WMD argument through March 6 2003, according to W, was not a valid argument for war. THINK about it Correll. W was willing to leave SH in power had W allowed Iraq to be disarmed peacefully. W never entertained one public thought to start a war to convert IRAQ into a functioning liberal democracy. POST#3372

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote; Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373

NFBW wrote; If you do indeed think it is an argument for war Correll do you think it is a valid argument for war and was properly and currently used to make a case for invading Iraq. POST#3373

NFBW wrote; When I say ‘valid’ let’s go by how American mothers and fathers of US military personnel think when their young sons and daughters are being asked to put their lives and limbs on the line to protect and defend their country, POST#3373

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363

Correll write: With all due respect Not, what you just claimed there, was retarded. POST#3370

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003? POST#3374

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: WMD,s were the only part of the argument for war that was valid in March 2003 and validated because it was the only argument that was acted upon. POST#3364

Correll wrote: Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote: Even the WMD argument through March 6 2003, according to W, was not a valid argument for war. THINK about it Correll. W was willing to leave SH in power had W allowed Iraq to be disarmed peacefully. W never entertained one public thought to start a war to convert IRAQ into a functioning liberal democracy. POST#3372

NFBW wrote: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372

Because it could serve as a real contribution to the security and defense of the nation from a real threat.

That is a very valid reason for war.


Your pretense that validity is defined by the actions of a group, is not reasonable. It is the logical fallacy of proof by popularity.


The Nazis had a lot of reasons for a lot of wars. THey were willing to act on them. Does that mean that those reasons were valid? That is the implication of your argument.


Which I'm sure is not what you intended.


See what I did there? I saw an implication of your words. Instead of assuming the worst possible interpretation so that I could attack you on it, I assumed the most reasonable interpretation.


That's me being the reasonable one here, instead of the jerk.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: Also, "acted upon", does not indicate in any way that the other arguments were not valid. POST#3371

NFBW wrote; Is this Correll in your opinion - an argument in general for starting a war? POST#3373

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” POST#3373

NFBW wrote; If you do indeed think it is an argument for war Correll do you think it is a valid argument for war and was properly and currently used to make a case for invading Iraq. POST#3373

NFBW wrote; When I say ‘valid’ let’s go by how American mothers and fathers of US military personnel think when their young sons and daughters are being asked to put their lives and limbs on the line to protect and defend their country, POST#3373

No. I disagree with that comment and the world view that it has as a premise.


That being said, considering our status and power, more nations should be more respectful to US.

The way that bad mouthing US, is considered a fun sport and completely safe, is possibly a sign that we have been too lenient on too many people.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: I never said that it was in the Authorization. POST#3369

NFBW wrote: Then you have finally admitted it was not an argument for war worth considering. Post#3363

Correll write: With all due respect Not, what you just claimed there, was retarded. POST#3370

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003? POST#3374

Constitutionally Congress is supposed to be the branch that declares war. For reasons I do not completely understand, they have mostly abdicated that role.

I disagree with that abdication, but I recognize that it is an historical fact.


NOte how, I don't use my disagreement as a...."reason" to pretend that it did not happen.


That is me being a sane person. Instead of engaging in magical thinking.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll wrote: And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions. POST#3371

NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have often expressed here my support for the ad hoc switch to the humanitarian argument for the Iraq military occupation after the actual causus belli that SH in possession of WMD posed an urgent and unique threat to the national security of the United States and to the security and the peace in the region and to the entire world. The failure to find SH in possession of WMD meant the argument made to justify the invasion was no longer valid. A new case for half decade of military occupation was developed on the fly and it was incompetence in action but I supported the argument that we were forced morally and financially to do nation building in Iraq because we broke it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: I did not support the argument to do nation building ny military force as a reason to start the war prior to MARCH 2003 because as an American it was never asked by our government of me or members of Congress to consider it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: But i was aware that private citizens known at the time calling themselves neocons were pushing the nation-building argument as a reason to start a war in Iraq and beyond in other countries after their expected success in IRAQ. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: So you are a liar. I was fully aware of every single argument for starting a war in Iraq at the time specifically the neoconservative argument that an intent to do nation building when the Iraqis don’t have a say in the debate and some of them will die is morally unfit to be considered. And so IRAQ was invaded for the threat of SH in possession of WMD not for humanitarian reasons at all. Quit lying about me. POST#3378

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: And even more also, you are admitting that there were other arguments. Which conflicts with your previous positions. POST#3371

NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have often expressed here my support for the ad hoc switch to the humanitarian argument for the Iraq military occupation after the actual causus belli that SH in possession of WMD posed an urgent and unique threat to the national security of the United States and to the security and the peace in the region and to the entire world. The failure to find SH in possession of WMD meant the argument made to justify the invasion was no longer valid. A new case for half decade of military occupation was developed on the fly and it was incompetence in action but I supported the argument that we were forced morally and financially to do nation building in Iraq because we broke it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: I did not support the argument to do nation building ny military force as a reason to start the war prior to MARCH 2003 because as an American it was never asked by our government of me or members of Congress to consider it. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: But i was aware that private citizens known at the time calling themselves neocons were pushing the nation-building argument as a reason to start a war in Iraq and beyond in other countries after their expected success in IRAQ. POST#3378

NFBW wrote: So you are a liar. I was fully aware of every single argument for starting a war in Iraq at the time specifically the neoconservative argument that an intent to do nation building when the Iraqis don’t have a say in the debate and some of them will die is morally unfit to be considered. And so IRAQ was invaded for the threat of SH in possession of WMD not for humanitarian reasons at all. Quit lying about me. POST#3378

That was a big pile of nonsense.


My point stands. You have admitted to there being other arguments made, but keep circling around to also denying that there were any other arguments made.


You are Wally.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Constitutionally Congress is supposed to be the branch that declares war. For reasons I do not completely understand, they have mostly abdicated that role.

I disagree with that abdication, but I recognize that it is an historical fact.

I didn’t ask for your opinion on that. I asked for your answer to this;

NFBW wrote: Do you Correll think Congress is not relevant when it weighed all or some of the arguments for or against starting a war by invasion into Iraq in March 2003? POST#3374