Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

That was a big pile of nonsense.

Why? You lied about me and calling it nonsense does not undo the fact that you are a liar.

 

[Correll]

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

My answer was clear. They have some input but not nearly as much as they should, imo.

 

[Correll]

Why? You lied about me and calling it nonsense does not undo the fact that you are a liar.

The part you cut, where I explained my response, was kind of relevant.

That was kind of a dick move on your part.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The part you cut, where I explained my response, was kind of relevant.

Your explanation was a bigger lie than the original..

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.

I have never denied there were other arguments made. I reject that any other arguments than the one used in the AUMF have validity in building the actual historic case for war in 2003.

 

[Correll]

Your explanation was a bigger lie than the original..




I have never denied there were other arguments made. I reject that any other arguments than the one used in the AUMF have validity in building the actual historic case for war in 2003.

You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument. For you to deny that now, is the height of either dishonesty or delusion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument.

You are a lIar.

NFBW wrote: Here is one of my posts containing the word “only”.. POST#3386



NFBW wrote: You cannot “know” that the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMD because the only one person who is responsible for that case specific decision .... tells you clearly that the opposite is true. POST#1551

He tells you right here:

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. POST#1551

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.” POST#1551

If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war this statement in reality would make no sense whatsoever. The decision could have been made when Bush was still a drunkard. POST#1551

But on March 6 Bush explains exactly the only ONE reason that he would decide to start a war - that was WMD being hidden from those 1441 inspectors POST#1551


NFBW wrote: I acknowledged other cases for war in that post when I wrote: “If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war” So you are in fact a liar. POST#3386

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ONLY


IF I say I was the ONLY American living in Timbuktu I’m not saying Iban the only American living in the world.

Biden talked about a ground invasion of Iraq ONLY ONLY ONLY Only WITH UN SECURITY COUNCIL Approval

It was the sole and only basis for invading Iraq as presented by W and authorized by Congress.

Its why they searched for a year to find them because they knew it was the only true justification to start killing Iraqis and getting more Americans killed than died on September 11 2001.

There was no case for war outside of SH being in possession of WMD and getting those WMD into the hands of terrorists.

The fact of the 1441 inspections being focused fully on WMD is the full and absolute proof that there was no plan by W to take down the regime if the inspectors verified that the WMD did not exist.

W put it in writing that SH can avoid war and removal if he was verified disarmed.

Its why W lied on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence confirming with no doubt that SH was hiding WMD from inspectors.

My point was the only true point to be made about the ‘other’ or your ‘personal’ justification for getting half a million Iraqis killed is that it is not a disagreement. Your personal justification for the war is not valid. The nation building argument for war was not an argument to justify starting a war in the middle of ongoing peaceful inspections.

The invasion was based on separating a high risk dictatorship from its possession of WMD and ONLY that.

There was no other argument for war. Nation Building was an obligation that had to be met by the invading army only because regime change was falsely determined by W as the ONLY way to disarm IRAQ of suspected lethal WMD stockpiles ongoing production capability.

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 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

You have no recovery from hitting you with this fact.

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

On the positives side “SH can only succeed in avoiding war if he cooperates on the one and ONLY ONE reason why W sent the Inspectors there. To verify the declaration by Iraq that it was disarmed.

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? *** W

Correll wrote: That a man focuses on one reason for doing something does not mean that there are not other reasons for doing it. POST#1598

Your argument sucks. The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. My point is not reliant on W’s focus.

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: Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time - Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441:

*** America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?

President George W. Bush
The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

ONE DETERMINATION.

Correll reply to POST#3263: You said that. My response stands. Get to something new. POST#3270.

“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not” W speech in November 2002.

Perhaps Correll accidentally missed replying to the content of POST#3263. He called me a liar because I know for a fact that the only case for invading Iraq was the threat of WMD in SH’s control meant he had to be removed.

POST#3263 informed Correll that my source regarding the above fact is W himself. W Affirmed I am telling the truth. But Correll calls the truth a lie:

How convenient it was for Correll to skip the following points from Post#3263.

NFBW wrote: The AUMF specifically authorized W to make a specific determination regarding relevant UN resolutions. POST#3263

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: Bush determined there was ONLY one case for war and he publically declared his determination on March 06 that there was no need for war if SH is disarmed peacefully. POST#1555

NFBW wrote: In W’s precise and clear words, my star witness testified at the time. POST#3263

- Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: *** “America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?” POST#3263

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DC November 8, 2002 *** POST#3263

Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar.

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.

Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.

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?

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

You constantly claim that wmd was the only argument

 

[Correll]

You are a lIar.

NFBW wrote: Here is one of my posts containing the word “only”.. POST#3386



NFBW wrote: You cannot “know” that the case for war was NOT made solely on the basis of the WMD because the only one person who is responsible for that case specific decision .... tells you clearly that the opposite is true. POST#1551

He tells you right here:

“I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. POST#1551

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.” POST#1551

If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war this statement in reality would make no sense whatsoever. The decision could have been made when Bush was still a drunkard. POST#1551

But on March 6 Bush explains exactly the only ONE reason that he would decide to start a war - that was WMD being hidden from those 1441 inspectors POST#1551


NFBW wrote: I acknowledged other cases for war in that post when I wrote: “If Bush had made the case on March 6 2003 that any other case for war brought about the necessity of war” So you are in fact a liar. POST#3386

Dude. You say it all the time. DROP THE SHIT.

 

[Correll]

ONLY


IF I say I was the ONLY American living in Timbuktu I’m not saying Iban the only American living in the world.

I stopped reading here. Your denial is stupid. You say it all the time. It is has been your major point.


This is what your whole life it about.


1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.

2. No wmds.

3. Thus those that supported the war are liars and "bloodthristy monsters". " And did I mention they are white and Christian, and Nationalists too?"



It is a moronic chain of logic, but it is the central core of your entire identity.


Which is very sad.



I have of course, utterly crushed that "logic" so often that even you know it. Now you are just stonewalling. And dancing around a lot. Playing various silly games.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.

You lied saying I have constantly ppstef there was only one “argument” for war.
You are a liar. And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lyinf about that too.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. You say it all the time. DROP THE SHIT.

Show the post or quit lying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This is what your whole life it about.


1. WMDs were the stated reason for the war.

2. No wmds.

3. Thus those that supported the war are liars and "bloodthristy monsters". " And did I mention they are white and Christian, and Nationalists too?"

Nope! You supported the war to do nation building. The WMD argument was not convincing at the time you said. You are a blood thirsty warmonger for that main reason plus you say fuck the UN, there was no way Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully. You did not support a policy of exhausting all peaceful means before jumping into war - the war killed half a million Iraqis - for nation building?? You are a bloodthirsty warmonger in the Cheney Wolfowitz Rumsfeld fuck the UN camp.

Its not the Republican base’s fault that W lied to them about Iraq’s WMD threat - so they are not necessarily “liars and "bloodthristy monsters” - But like you when they start lying about what occurred during the ramp up to war - then it is very appropriate to call them what they are - blood thirsty warmongers.

 

[Correll]

You lied saying I have constantly ppstef there was only one “argument” for war.
You are a liar. And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lyinf about that too.

You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war, then you state that that one reason was the reason and dismiss the other one that we have discussed.


You sort of might be implying even other reasons, but that type of general vague point is completely at odds with your more general style of autistic obsessive detail.


If you have something to say, fucking say it. Because all I have heard you say for months is "WMDS were teh sole argument for war".


Well that, and "WHITE MAN BAD".

 

[Correll]

Show the post or quit lying.

You seem to enjoy obsessively going over past posts to dig up, supposed "gotchas".

I don't. I cant' be bothered. I will instead airily dismiss your pretense that he have not said it, and move on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war,

NFBW wrote: I deny it because I never claimed it. You are a liar because you cannot go back and find a post where I wrote it. Your arguments, your warmongering propaganda, your alternate reality regarding the ramp up to war all fail to be coherent, factual or truthful when weighed against the facts and words and actions used by the President, politicians and authorities on all sides back then - so you lie about what I’m saying as your only recourse for attempting to engage in an honest discussion about Iraq. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: SHORT ANSWER - you are a liar because you have to be. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: You have clearly stated that your pre-war support for the killing of half a million Iraqis was to do nation building (The WMD Argument for war was not convincing to you ) after it was part of a national debate prior to the start of Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE. Thus you have created the fake reality that nation building was one of the reasons that W and CONGRESS made it NECESSARY and justifiable to invade and occupy Iraq. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: The pre-war “nation building” argument “for war” was most publicly made on the basis of the neocon Ledeen Rule by a fellow neocon warmonger named Jonah Goldberg. Neither were elected officials in any capacity prior to the invasion to disarm Iraq in MARCH 19 2003 nor were they afterwards. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: The LEDEEN rule used to justify nation building in Muslim countries according to Jonah Goldberg on April 23 2002. POST#3395

“”” WHY IRAQ?

So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the “Ledeen Doctrine.” I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it,

Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two | National Review

For part one, click here. During the Cold War, few people said, “We have to solve the problem of Latvia, before we can even begin to address the problem of the Soviet Union.” Latvia’s problem — as…

www.nationalreview.com

but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “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.” “”” cited in POST#3395

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Correll wrote: 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. POST#3375

NFBW wrote: It was not a valid reason for starting a war in Iraq in March 2003. POST#3396

NFBW wrote: Again you did not answer the question you were asked. POST#3396

NFBW asks second time: How can nation building be a valid argument for war if nobody will start a war to do it? POST#3372 POST#3396

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW wrote: You lied saying I have constantly posted there was only one “argument” for war. POST#3390

NFBW wrote: And yes WMDs were the stated reason for the war - to do nation building or not is a post-war argument. It was not an argument used to justify war. You are lying about that too. POST#3390

Correll wrote: You deny that you claim there was only one reason for the war, then you state that that one reason was the reason and dismiss the other one that we have discussed. POST#3393

NFBW wrote: I am telling you a fact. WMDs were the stated reason for the war. That is a fact verifiable in the written language in the AUMF passed in March 2003. POST#3397

NFBW wrote: The AUMF limited the potential “if necessary” use of military force in Iraq to the enforcement of relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding WMD. POST#3397

NFBW wrote: The entire world from second grade on up probably understands that it is not me dismissing “nation building” as a justification for war in Iraq within the wording of the binding AUMF. POST#3397

NFBW wrote: It was the US CONGRESS that dismissed the Ledeen/Goldberg neocon nation building argument that was floated step under in early 2002 as a justification for war in Iraq. It was not me. POST#3397

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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 (Ledeen Jonah Goldberg Machiavelli)

Correll wrote: No. I disagree with that comment and the world view that it has as a premise. POST#3377

NFBW wrote: Why do you disagree? POST#3398

NFBW wrote: It was Jonah Greenberg’s April 2002 dissertation on the neocon argument for starting a war in the crappy little country Iraq to begin the strategic projects of nation building in the strategic Guif Region. POST#3398

NFBW wrote: Here is an excerpt from GOLDBERG’s Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two By JONAH GOLDBERG
April 23, 2002 / NATIONAL REVIEW POST#3398

“”” The most compelling substantive reason, from my point of view, is that Iraq should be a democratic, republican country, with individual rights secured by a liberal constitution.

Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two | National Review

For part one, click here. During the Cold War, few people said, “We have to solve the problem of Latvia, before we can even begin to address the problem of the Soviet Union.” Latvia’s problem — as…

www.nationalreview.com

(My preferred governmental model is something along the lines of the Swiss confederation, with Kurds, Shiites, and Arab-Sunnis each having considerable internal autonomy but a shared national government. The country is already split in three parts by the U.S.- and British-imposed no-fly zones anyway. “”” POST#3398

 

[basquebromance]

Saddam Hussein was brutal to his own people for decades, Saddam Hussein threatened America and almost killed Bush's daddy, Saddam Hussein's actions justify America going to war, Saddam Hussein's barbarism is why i support the involvement in a war by America

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: I deny it because I never claimed it. You are a liar because you cannot go back and find a post where I wrote it. Your arguments, your warmongering propaganda, your alternate reality regarding the ramp up to war all fail to be coherent, factual or truthful when weighed against the facts and words and actions used by the President, politicians and authorities on all sides back then - so you lie about what I’m saying as your only recourse for attempting to engage in an honest discussion about Iraq. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: SHORT ANSWER - you are a liar because you have to be. POST#3395

NFBW wrote: You have clearly stated that your pre-war support for the killing of half a million Iraqis

I stopped reading here. All you are doing it being a spam bot, spamming anti-American propaganda and divisive hate now.


You got a point to make or you just going to keep spamming?