Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

Did I say "at the time" or did you add that?

Yes you did;

I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

It matters because you don’t have evidence that SH wax involved in any support of global terrorist after 1441.

It shows you are a liar.

 

[struth]

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

As a white cultural Christian and diehard conservative Correll can you explain to me why all the Iraq war mongering conservatives that supported the invasion of Iraq are so emphatic about reminding us that many Democrats voted for the war too. (Nancy didn’t) That is of course forgetting that the authorization to use military force in Iraq had the caveat “if necessary“.

it never said anything about “if necessary

 

[whutTHEYsay]

it never said anything about “if necessary

It certainty did. You are a liar. Bush himself says he hoped war would not be necessary as late as March 8 2003;

“But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully”..........Bush MARCH 2003.

​

​

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avid war in Iraq. ​

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."Mar. 8, 2003 George W. Bush​

 

[struth]

it never said anything about “if necessary

It certainty did. You are a liar. Bush himself says he hoped war would not be necessary as late as March 8 2003;

“But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully”..........Bush MARCH 2003.

​

​

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avid war in Iraq. ​

​

But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."Mar. 8, 2003 George W. Bush​

of course we all hoped it wouldn’t be necessary

but the authorization didn’t say “if necessary”

it authorized him to use it as ever he deemed necessary

 

[whutTHEYsay]

it authorized him to use it as ever he deemed necessary

You are a liar. Bush couldn’t just “deem” it necessary ... you are a liar It had two qualifiers that meant it was not necessary on the day Congress voted for it.

It was to be determined in the future depending on what happened at the UN and in Iraq with inspections.


It reads
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.

 

[struth]

it authorized him to use it as ever he deemed necessary

You are a liar. Bush couldn’t just “deem” it necessary ... you are a liar It had two qualifiers that meant it was not necessary on the day Congress voted for it.

It was to be determined in the future depending on what happened at the UN and in Iraq with inspections.


It reads
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.

Yes.....(a) AUTHORIZATION- AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary

AS HE DETERMINES....there is nothing qualifying that.

I'd say stop lying...but you have been provided this over and over again....I thought you might just be an old Saddam loyalist...but now I just think you can't read

 

[whutTHEYsay]

AS HE DETERMINES....there is nothing qualifying that.

Ignorance has overwhelming power over you.

Do you know what “in order to” means?



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.


You are such an ignorant fool - you even said the folliwing about the authorization to use military force. Skipping this stipulation “in order to --(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN..

 

[Correll]

We HAD a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion.

That was impossible because #1 the Bush Administration lied to the public about the threat that he used to justify preemptive war..

That was impossible because #2 even after all this time you insist your pre-invasion support for war was based on the best argument for war, which was to create a functioning democracy in the ME to be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. Iraq just happened to be a good candidate for that you said

That was impossible because #3 you answered my question with a yay.

Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?

2. Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. 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.

That was impossible because #4 there was no debate from your neocon PNAC, Cheney, Christopher Hitchens, lust for Saddam Hussein’s blood which was aroused by al Qaeda even though the DIctator had no ties to the 911 attacks that set Chris Hitchens. Your views on Iraq are so in line with the atheist Marxist neocon Iraq war monger now deceased I can hardly tell you apart.

“An earlier anti-war demand—”Give the Inspectors More Time”—was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail.​

​

Giving Peace a Chance The war critics were right—not in the way they expected. BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS APRIL 09, 2003 4:10 PM​

​

Now the inspectors are well and truly in, there’s no further need for an embargo.”​

There was no debate whether the inspections should continue or be booted out by the USA.

That yuh saying there was a debate - is one of your absurdities on Iraq A myth.

The person making the decision was too busy lying to be bothered with debating those Trumpo hinking it wise to be absolutely certain the wmd intelligence was absolutely correct before starting a war to find .
then.

How could we have a debate with people like you and Hitchens who didn’t care if SH had none x C at all. You relished taking SH down for the sake of taking him down.

1. We had a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Your denial is just you being obtuse.

2. I never claimed that my argument was the best argument, and even if I did, it is irrelevant what the best argument was. Are you pretending to not understand that people make decisions based on many factors? YOU ARE SO DISHONEST.

3. No, it is not.

4. You quoting PNAC, means nothing to me.

5. You are talking in circles, not making any sense.

 

[Correll]

Funny, did you forget you were asking me about my reasons?

no one loves whine more than a neocon warmonger.

....

What the **** are you raving about?

Listen whack a doodle, what would it mean to you, if the Iraqi Democracy succeeds and results in a demonstrable improvement in the quality of life for it's citizens?

 

[Correll]

This was nearly twenty years ago and you are grilling me for details.

But you’ve been saying these the past few weeks that decision to start nation building on March 17, 2003 through the use of massive military force was an honest mistake.

When you can’t defend your present day arguments you cry foul And try to shut down the debate. I’m fully aware of your tactics.

Listen, you lying fucktard. I said that the belief that Saddam had wmds, was an honest mistake.


That you lie about what I said, is you being a liar.

 

[Correll]

Yes. Saudi Arabia is a shitty country TOO.

You are a neocon like Christopher Hitchens right? Why did you stop in Baghdad? From there you could’ve launched to Tehran. Next stop Damascus. By then Mecca and Riyadh would’ve been a piece of cake. Hell with Iraq and Saudi Arabia’s oil we could re-rebuild the entire world from Pakistan To the Sinai desert.

Had we confiscated all the oil even Trump would embrace your plan.

no, I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.

Plenty of reasons why "to stop in Baghad".


Your entire post is dumb as shit.

 

[Correll]

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

As a white cultural Christian and diehard conservative Correll can you explain to me why all the Iraq war mongering conservatives that supported the invasion of Iraq are so emphatic about reminding us that many Democrats voted for the war too. (Nancy didn’t) That is of course forgetting that the authorization to use military force in Iraq had the caveat “if necessary“.

I have not bothered to remind you of that. In the context of this thread, and your weird obsession, I don't see how it is relevant.


Though to be fair, I don't really get what the **** you think you are doing, so maybe he is right and it is relevant to this thread.


It is weird though, your projection of group think. Very revealing.

 

[Correll]

I fully supported taking out Saddam, but I supported using special forces and more covert operations then a fully scale war.

As a white cultural Christian and diehard conservative and Trump supporter Correll can you explain to struth why “full scale” war including the killing of innocent civilians was necessary to the decision on March 17 2003 to start a nation building project in Iraq on that date in history.

Special Forces in lieu of massive military force (killing innocent civilians) with the intent to reconstruct a Muslim nation and its society in our Judeo/ Christian cultural image would have reduced collateral damage on the civilian population for sure. But without the presence of massive military force the chaos in the hornets nest once Hussain‘s government structure was gone would have been horrific. More horrific than it actually was because Bush didn’t send enough troops to do proper nation building at the beginning.

Maybe you two Trump supporting warmongers can’t communicate better than I can from outside the cult of Trump’s personality.

Can you explain to your fellow conservative that going in with special forces would never have made sense or work because the first objective of the invading army was to behead the regime but most importantly was to secure the WMD so IT didn’t fall into the hands of terrorists.

WILL you do that @Corral? Or do you not agree that Massive military force was not required to nation build in Iraq.

We had tried covert means though out the entire Bill Clinton Administrations. I think that Saddam was too well entrenched to be overthrown that way.

 

[Correll]

Did I say "at the time" or did you add that?

Yes you did;

I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

It matters because you don’t have evidence that SH wax involved in any support of global terrorist after 1441.

It shows you are a liar.

Actually it shows you are stupid. My comment "at that time" was clearly in reference to when I realized it, not when I thought that the support was taking place.


You are talking in circles and fixating on minor, what you think are discrepancies, and investing all this meaning into them, as proof of something, decades after the fact.


EVERYTHING, you though you realized or proved based on that was you being an asshole based on your own stupidity.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

. My comment "at that time" was clearly in reference to when I realized it, not when I thought that the support was taking place.

You are a liar. You wrote this:

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

Now you will dismiss or deny that,

The story of the run up to the invasion has one true story that is not open to interpretation and lies.

But I will take your revision as I see you are now saying Saddam Hussein did not pay suicide bomber families after 1441.

What I have to do to get the truth about the peaceful disarming process out of a white cultural Christian warmongering Trump supporter is worth it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

My comment "at that time" was clearly in reference to when I realized it, not when I thought that the support was taking place.

when you realized what?

“The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time”

Your statement cant be reconstructed as you wish.

You got caught lying so its time to fess up.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

We had tried covert means though out the entire Bill Clinton Administrations.

Where did you read or hear of that? We launched some missiles when Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. Pretty sad that it was the POTUS behaving badly when he kicked the inspectors out in 2003.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

what would it mean to you, if the Iraqi Democracy succeeds and results in a demonstrable improvement in the quality of life for it's citizens?

It doesn’t matter what it means to me. The offense was deciding to do it to them. It was never our decision. Shams Amin and her brothers and father will never know the democracy you chose for them because collateral damage has no life to experience George Bush’s glorious gift of democracy.

 

[Correll]

. My comment "at that time" was clearly in reference to when I realized it, not when I thought that the support was taking place.

You are a liar. You wrote this:

The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time.

Now you will dismiss or deny that,

The story of the run up to the invasion has one true story that is not open to interpretation and lies.

But I will take your revision as I see you are now saying Saddam Hussein did not pay suicide bomber families after 1441.

What I have to do to get the truth about the peaceful disarming process out of a white cultural Christian warmongering Trump supporter is worth it.

Wow. How much time do you spend going over and over this shit? Are you a shut in?

Any how, you can talk in circles all you want. This was nearly twenty years ago.


What is your plan for dealing with muslim terrorism?

 

[Correll]

My comment "at that time" was clearly in reference to when I realized it, not when I thought that the support was taking place.

when you realized what?

“The Iraqi government was supporting terrorism at that time”

Your statement cant be reconstructed as you wish.

You got caught lying so its time to fess up.

You are playing silly word games, to try to undermine my stated reasons IN THE PAST, so that you can retroactively demonstrate that since my reasons were "wrong", my actual reasons must have been "bloodlust" or some such nonsense.


It doesn't work that way. It is literally insane to think it does.


Even if you were successful in disproving my stated reasons, it would not change the fact that I believed them then.


That would/could be useful in moving forward in future discussions, in that you could remind me of my supposedly past "mistakes" and to be more restrained in the future.


But that is not your intent. You want to somehow prove that the people you hate are bad people and should be... what? Marginalized? Punished? Canceled?


You are not well.