Did you Support War in Iraq??

[whutTHEYsay]

Lincoln claimed that he just wanted Fort Sumter to stay there to collect tariffs. That was bullshit.

Fort Sumter was attacked by the Confederates.The started the Civil War. Lincoln did not start the war. so his could tell any lie to start a war?

Its not complicated at all. Pretend that Bagdad was Fort Sumter.

You see Bush lied and then attacked Fort Sumter based in his lies.

Lincoln did not attack Fort Sumter. He had nothing to lie about.

 

[struth]

hahaha show me where any of that is in the law...i’ll wait

Wait for what? The AUMF was voted on in October 2002 when there were no inspectors in Iraq.

After inspectors returned to Iraq, Biden announced his updated position on the War in February 2003. He publicly opposed an invasion without a second resolution at the UNSC based on the outcome of inspections.

This is about facts and reality.

​

Senator Biden: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

​

So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier?​

​

​

there has been inspections for years

 

[whutTHEYsay]

there has been inspections for years

You are a liar. the inspectors had not been in Iraq since 1998 when they left because SH restricted access to sites the inspectors were required to visit..

Its sad that there are so many stupid people like you who have no idea or knowledge of what happened in 2003 that caused so much needless death and destruction in the world because of the decision of one American president who lied with a straight face so he could start a Christian cultural war in Iraq in order to please the same white evangelical Christian GOP base that later will become Trump’s anti-war base.

Getting inspectors back in was what the AUMF references here;

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 Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and​

​

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.​

​

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.​

 

[Correll]

5. I was not angry or impatient.

I’m definitely calling bullshit on that one. Thats been your entire argument for that March 17 2003 start the war.

• #846 Correll said: Sure he did. You can't just keep ******* around indefinitely, especially when the country you are ******* around with, just lost 3k citizens to a surprise attack.

Do you forget how angry America was

You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping track of what or whom, we are discussing. There is a difference between being impatient for a man to do something, and being impatient FOR war. Also a distinction to be made between a country, such as AMERICA, and a person such as me.

You looked at two different conversations about different people, and different topics in different situations, focused on ONE WORD being the same, and sort of lost everything else.

Why are you like this? Even if you have aspergers', you don't have to be like THIS.

If you make the issue about race and religion, if the next war is led by a black atheist, then the lesson will not be applied.

I’m not making it about race and religion. Its the historical and political fact that the 2003 warmonger mob in America (About 4 of 10 Americans ) were from that white evangelical Christian nationalists base that evolved ito the Tea Party and further devolved into the “Big Lie” Believing Trump cult.

You didn’t see many non-Republicans, non-whites and non-nationalistic evangelical Christians clamoring for Bush to kick the inspectors out and start a war in Iraq.

If you can contest anything I just said go for it dudes.

You are not making any sense. Unless you are saying that being white or being christian or being nationalistic, makes you inherently more warlike, then what you just said seems to have no relelvance.

If you ARE saying that, which is what I get from you, then you are being a bigot and a racist.


AND, my point, that you then have made a racist and bigoted and partisan "lesson" that will be ignored in the future by any "non-Republicans, non-whites and non-nationalistic evangelical Christians " who might be considering war as a policy.


What is your goal here? To be anti-war or to score partisan points, in a racist and bigoted way?

 

[Correll]

4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.

Your rules are fascist.

Nope. My rules are more traditional. YOu saying fascist is just you using name calling because you have no real argument.


Would you like to start a thread about what constitutes a Just War, and drop all the racist and anti-Christian and partisan shit?


That was a rhetorical question. I know that you would never want to drop your racist and anti-christian and partisan shit.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You are not making any sense. Unless you are saying that being white or being christian or being nationalistic, makes you inherently more warlike, then what you just said seems to have no relelvance.

Not saying that. Citing a demographic political reality that won’t go away because you are uncomfortable with reality. Thats all, white cultural Christian warmongering dude.

 

[Correll]

2. Who said I was unconcerned about the human cost?

You did.

No, I did not. That was your insanely partisan misunderstanding of my words.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

My rules are more traditional

My rules are more traditional.

The BUSH DOCTRINE was anything but traditional.

Radical departure​

According to Buchanan and others, the Bush Doctrine was a radical departure from former United States foreign policies, and a continuation of the ideological roots of neoconservatism.[39][73][74][75][76][77]​

Initially, support for the United States was high,[77] but by the end of the Bush administration, after seven years of war, anti-Americanism was high and criticism of the Bush Doctrine was widespread;[77][78]nonetheless the doctrine still had support among some United States political leaders.[78]​

The representation of prominent neoconservatives and their influences on the Bush Doctrine had been highly controversial among the American public.[41][52][78][79]​

Critics, like John Micklethwait in the book The Right Nation, claim that Bush was deceived by neoconservatives into adopting their policies.[52][80][81]​

​

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Correll]

Lincoln claimed that he just wanted Fort Sumter to stay there to collect tariffs. That was bullshit.

Fort Sumter was attacked by the Confederates.The started the Civil War. Lincoln did not start the war. so his could tell any lie to start a war?

Its not complicated at all. Pretend that Bagdad was Fort Sumter.

You see Bush lied and then attacked Fort Sumter based in his lies.

Lincoln did not attack Fort Sumter. He had nothing to lie about.

He lied to justify keeping it there, knowing that the South would attack it, so that he could have his war and end slavery.


Do I need to connect these dots with a crayon?


He could not go to the American people and tell them that he wanted them to fight and die to end slavery. He had to give them a justification that they would be willing to fight for.

 

[Correll]

You are not making any sense. Unless you are saying that being white or being christian or being nationalistic, makes you inherently more warlike, then what you just said seems to have no relelvance.

Not saying that. Citing a demographic political reality that won’t go away because you are uncomfortable with reality. Thats all, white cultural Christian warmongering dude.

I'm not uncomfortable with it at all. I just don't know why you are so focused on making it an issue in this thread.

Why are you? I mean, would you find it odd if I kept mention the high percentage of blacks that supported your position in the lead up to the war? Over and over again, as though that... I don't even know, undermined your credibility? Or perhaps it said something bad about blacks?

 

[Correll]

My rules are more traditional

My rules are more traditional.

The BUSH DOCTRINE was anything but traditional.

Radical departure​

According to Buchanan and others, the Bush Doctrine was a radical departure from former United States foreign policies, and a continuation of the ideological roots of neoconservatism.[39][73][74][75][76][77]​

Initially, support for the United States was high,[77] but by the end of the Bush administration, after seven years of war, anti-Americanism was high and criticism of the Bush Doctrine was widespread;[77][78]nonetheless the doctrine still had support among some United States political leaders.[78]​

The representation of prominent neoconservatives and their influences on the Bush Doctrine had been highly controversial among the American public.[41][52][78][79]​

Critics, like John Micklethwait in the book The Right Nation, claim that Bush was deceived by neoconservatives into adopting their policies.[52][80][81]​

​

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nice changing of the subject. I guess you looked up the traditional rules for war, and realized that you had not a leg to stand on?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

 

[Correll]

Nazi Germany was not a threat to our nation, when we declared war on it.

I am surprised you were not aware the First use of the Blitzkrieg strategy in September 1939 since you must be an admirer of a good white Christian cultural conservative like Mike Pence. who As yuh know Pence just recently survived a lynch mob speckled with American Nazi Trump supporters and white supremacists, and Christian Q-anon cult members because he failed Trump so miserably on January 6 2021.

​

After roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, more than 2,000 airplanes and more than 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939, the British gave Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler an ultimatum: pull out of Poland, or else.​

​

The Invasion of Poland Wasn't Hitler's First Aggression. Here's Why That Move Marked the Beginning of WWII

Roughly 1.5 million German soldiers, 2,000 airplanes and 2,500 tanks crossed the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939

www.google.com

​

Hitler ignored the demand, and two days later, on Sept. 3, 1939, Britain and France declared war. Thus began World War II, and this weekend Vice President Mike Pence will travel to Poland to mark the anniversary of that event​

Was weak Poland invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was that a military outbreak of fascism that threatened the entire world or not? Was Poland a threat to Germany when the BLITZKIEG was launched by Adolp Hitler

Was weak Iraq invaded by the most powerful military on earth at that time? Was Iraq (with 200 UN INSPECTORS On the ground) a threat to its neighbors or to the rest of the world at that time? Was IRAQ a threat to The UNITED STATES of AMERICA when the March 2003 BLITZKIEG was launched by GEORGE W BUSH into Iraq?

The only thing you excel at @Correl cheapening language and farting from your brain.

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade.

My counter point was that nazi german was not a threat to us when we declared war on them.

Your attempt at rebuttal, did not contradict my point at all.


It did contain quite a bit of partisan and racist hate.


My point stands. Your point about Iraq not being a threat to us, is refuted.



A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.


DO you have the integrity and moral courage to admit that point?



lol!!! That was a joke. Of course you do not.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Nice changing of the subject.

I notice you don’t deny with reason and facts what I posted as fact.

How do you link the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war to the word ‘traditional’ I know you must weaken language to hang in here but once in a while you need to respect the traditional meanings of words.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade

Do you believe that is true? YES or NO?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.

There are no rules for “just war” that are different than what I posted.

This sums it up “

The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing.​

But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.​

Elements​

There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:​

• Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.
• Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.

The conditions under which US UK justified blitzkrieg into Iraq, the basis of the threat, was false. It was not a just war. It never can be viewed as such.

And your pre-war support for waging war to nation build was not and will not ever be a justified war on the basis of proportionality to moral lawful civilized human beings. That’s a fact that making up your own rules will never fly. You are a fascist - you don’t get to make the rules.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A nation being a direct threat to you, is not a requirement for a Just War.

Was the following not a requirement for consideration on Iraq.‘s compliance issues with the UN, keeping in mind the concept of proportionality:

• A decision regarding the use of military force must always take into account, proportionally, the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation.

That was the Catholic view, what is the white evangelical Christian Patriots for God and Country requirement for a just war?

As one if those let’s here your just war rules.

Here is the CATHOLIC “just war’ - opinion on the matter that There were repeated signs of Blitzkrieg into Iraq in the air. The following appeal took place on March 6 2003 while Bush was officially telling the public that a war with IRAQ was NOT necessary. He had not decided if it was at the time of the meeting with Cardinal Pio Laghi.

WASHINGTON — President Bush, fresh from making plans for war against Iraq, met for 40 minutes Wednesday with Cardinal Pio Laghi, an emissary from the Vatican who made a last appeal for peace.​

A friend of the president’s father and the Vatican’s first ambassador to Washington, Laghi brought to the White House the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church on Ash Wednesday. In Rome, meanwhile, Pope John Paul II called on the world to fast for peace.
Laghi, 80 years old and retired from the Vatican, said after his meeting with Bush that a war would be “illegal and unjust,” but stopped short of calling it immoral. In a news conference at the National Press Club, he also said the United States had an obligation to seek the blessings of the United Nations

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

“A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations,” he said, “but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity.”


How many Iraqi citizens were killed by the Baathist regime in Iraq during the month of February 2003?

How many Iraqi citizens were killed by Blitzkrieg forces during the month of April 2003.

 

[Correll]

Nice changing of the subject.

I notice you don’t deny with reason and facts what I posted as fact.

How do you link the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war to the word ‘traditional’ I know you must weaken language to hang in here but once in a while you need to respect the traditional meanings of words.

I don't link the two. That was you changing the subject, because you lost the last debate.

 

[Correll]

You made a point. That Iraq was not a threat to our nation when we decided to invade

Do you believe that is true? YES or NO?

My agreement was implied when I made the point that there were other times that we declared war with a nation that did not threaten US.


So to be clear, YES, I agree that Iraq did not directly threaten us.

BUT, DO YOU AGREE THAT NOT BEING DIRECTLY THREATENED, is not a bar to war? as in my example with Nazi Germany?


Or do you think that our declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a mistake?

 

[Correll]

4. My rules for what constitutes a Just War are different than yours.

There are no rules for “just war” that are different than what I posted.

This sums it up “

The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing.​

​

But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.​

​

Elements​

There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:​

• Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.
• Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.

The conditions under which US UK justified blitzkrieg into Iraq, the basis of the threat, was false. It was not a just war. It never can be viewed as such.

And your pre-war support for waging war to nation build was not and will not ever be a justified war on the basis of proportionality to moral lawful civilized human beings. That’s a fact that making up your own rules will never fly. You are a fascist - you don’t get to make the rules.

Your rules are certainly not the traditional standard rules for Just War. That was a lie on your part.

As is the pretense that the "threat" Iraq posed, was the only basis for the war. There were plenty of other reasons cited, though they got less attention, even by themselves they justify war, by the traditional rules of just war.