Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

i have told you that my belief is that their motives were to stop the coming war.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Stop the coming war.

Wow. I've only said that, like dozens of times.

Are you getting to a point any time soon?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.

Do you agree that it is a fact that the inspectors whom you say were trying to stop the coming war by trying to resolve old disarmament issues were not exploring or planning ways to insert a functioning democracy into Iraq society. What they were working on and planning was limited to WMD.

Do you agree.

And I am saying that conflict does not work like that.

Was there no offer of a final chance to comply? What are you saying?

 

[Correll]

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.

Do you agree that it is a fact that the inspectors whom you say were trying to stop the coming war by trying to resolve old disarmament issues were not exploring or planning ways to insert a functioning democracy into Iraq society. What they were working on and planning was limited to WMD.

Do you agree.

And I am saying that conflict does not work like that.

Was there no offer of a final chance to comply? What are you saying?

I do not agree. I think that what they were doing, in their minds, was working to prevent a war, which was NOT their job.


Was there a final chance to comply? I don't know. After a certain point I can't see anything Saddam could do, being enough to change the course of events.

The time for him to choose to deescalate, was in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War. If he had done that, he could have died in power, of old age and one of his sons could have inherited and continued his legacy of tyranny and oppression and mass murder and possibly even war.


Are you planning to get to a point any time soon?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

4. My point about the lack of wmds stands. YOu can't disarm something that is not there.

I am still trying to figure out why you believe that is true

Was there no offer of a final chance to comply? What are you saying?

I asked you was there no offer and final chance to comply

Was there a final chance to comply? I don't know.

Meditate on that all you want. My question was more simple? Was there an offer to SH for a final chance to comply to avoid war and his removal from power or was there not?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

If that were true , there is no way Saddam Hussein could ever have come into compliance with his disarmament obligations and there is no reason Bush should have given him a final opportunity to comply as he did went he sought and the UNSC to pass unanimously Resolution 1441 for a final round of tough inspections with no deadline. Bush basically wrote and supported 1441 until he realized that SH was heading for compliance.

Sure there was. Provide teh wmds, or provide the evidence that they were destroyed.

IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.

Are you still standing by all these positions?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was impossible for Saddam to comply. He had destroyed the bulk of his weapons and FAILED TO DOCUMENT IT.

The United States and the United Nations Security Council knew for a fact that SH destroyed the bulk of his weapons in the early nineties and failed to document it. Knowing that failure, the entire world agreed to give SH a final chance to comply and stay in power.

how could it have been impossible for SH to take advantage of his final chance to comply because he made a paperwork mistake in 1992?

 

[Correll]

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

If that were true , there is no way Saddam Hussein could ever have come into compliance with his disarmament obligations and there is no reason Bush should have given him a final opportunity to comply as he did went he sought and the UNSC to pass unanimously Resolution 1441 for a final round of tough inspections with no deadline. Bush basically wrote and supported 1441 until he realized that SH was heading for compliance.

Sure there was. Provide teh wmds, or provide the evidence that they were destroyed.

IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.

Are you still standing by all these positions?

The bit were you assume that people say shit, and then don't stand by it later, just because?


That is because you are a dishonest person. And you are projecting.


YES, I stand by my previous statements.


I really hope that you not going to strike together a series of MISrepresentations of shit I said and then build on top of that, and then attack me on that basis.

 

[Correll]

It was impossible for Saddam to comply. He had destroyed the bulk of his weapons and FAILED TO DOCUMENT IT.

The United States and the United Nations Security Council knew for a fact that SH destroyed the bulk of his weapons in the early nineties and failed to document it. Knowing that failure, the entire world agreed to give SH a final chance to comply and stay in power.

how could it have been impossible for SH to take advantage of his final chance to comply because he made a paperwork mistake in 1992?

Bullshit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

WHAT ARE YOU CALLING BULLSHT?

 

[Correll]

WHAT ARE YOU CALLING BULLSHT?

THe idea that teh UN security council and the united states knew that the wmds that they were looking for in the Persian Gulf War, were already destroyed back in the 90s.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YES, I stand by my previous statements.

Thank you.

Now did the United States of America make an offer to Saddam Hussein that would enable him to stay in power without war?

Was that offer made in the full knowledge of all the “whereas factors“ and other despicable acts by SH that were not related to disarmament and WMD?


Whereas Factors:

• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

 

[NotfooledbyW]

THe idea that teh UN security council and the united states knew that the wmds that they were looking for in the Persian Gulf War, were already destroyed back in the 90s.

The United States and the United Nations Security Council knew for a fact that SH destroyed the bulk of his weapons in the early nineties and failed to document it.

They didn’t know they were destroyed - they knew tats what Iraq claimed and failed to document it.

 

[Correll]

YES, I stand by my previous statements.

Thank you.

Now did the United States of America make an offer to Saddam Hussein that would enable him to stay in power without war?

Was that offer made in the full knowledge of all the “whereas factors“ and other despicable acts by SH that were not related to disarmament and WMD?


Whereas Factors:

• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions. He did not believe that Saddam would even try to take him up on it, and if he did try, Bush would have been EXTREMELY skeptical of any offer.


That is my position. It has not changed.

Make your point.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions. He did not believe that Saddam would even try to take him up on it, and if he did try, Bush would have been EXTREMELY skeptical of any offer.

But the offer Was Earnestly made in the name of the United States of America to give SH one final chance to comply avoid a war and therefore stay in power.

Do you agree?

it is very kind of you but I am not interested in your evaluation of the offer, just want to make it clear that you understand if the offer was made

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Was there a similar offer written into 1441 regarding the installation of a democracy in Iraq as a test for SH’s compliance in order to avoid war?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.


And they won.

What did the warmonger’s win exactly if the following is true?

IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.

I don’t recall losing a debate to war supporters when W said he would not start a war if SH was disarmed. He said it often and in the State of the Union which was not an “off the cuff” remark to my ears.

That meant your Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer and Dick Cheney’s “fuck the UN - invade Iraq to install democracy argument did not win as you claim as a matter of official US policy.

Thats because W’s Secretary of State informed me as early as December 2002 that Iraq was cooperating with inspectors and war was not

Here is factual backup;

Colin Powell's remarks on ABC's This Week with George Stephanoplous: war is not “inevitable” DECEMBER 2002

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, that mobilization is occurring in Iraq right now, or in the region around Iraq. But at the same time, Iraq seems to be cooperating with the inspectors. I know your views on the Iraqi declaration, but aside from that, do you have any other evidence that Iraq is not complying with the UN resolution?​

​

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos​

​

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the declaration is certainly noncompliant. There is no question about it. I don't think anybody is defending that declaration.​

​

They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues. There has been some resistance in recent days to some of the things the inspectors are looking for, and we are providing more information and intelligence to the inspectors to cue their visits and we'll see whether that attitude of cooperation continues.​

​

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And if it does, war is not inevitable?​

​

SECRETARY POWELL: We've never said that war is inevitable. The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. But at the same time, if Iraq does not cooperate or if we find reason to believe that they do have weapons of mass destruction that they have not identified and turned over to the international community, then the President has all of his options available to him. And he has the option of also going back to the United Nations or acting unilaterally with likeminded nations.​

So in the Fall of 2002 the matter of US policy of removing SH from power was not won by the proponents.

But official US policy to exhaust all peaceful means before invading a Muslim nation was not what we got according to you.

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions.

YES you warmongers won your war, But you never won the debate. Going through the motions indeed.

 

[Correll]

THe idea that teh UN security council and the united states knew that the wmds that they were looking for in the Persian Gulf War, were already destroyed back in the 90s.

The United States and the United Nations Security Council knew for a fact that SH destroyed the bulk of his weapons in the early nineties and failed to document it.

They didn’t know they were destroyed - they knew tats what Iraq claimed and failed to document it.

Ok. So, why did you say that they did know it? And what is the point of all of this discussion? You seem to be trying to talk into some sort of point, but very slowly.

Just get to it already.

 

[Correll]

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions. He did not believe that Saddam would even try to take him up on it, and if he did try, Bush would have been EXTREMELY skeptical of any offer.

But the offer Was Earnestly made in the name of the United States of America to give SH one final chance to comply avoid a war and therefore stay in power.

Do you agree?

it is very kind of you but I am not interested in your evaluation of the offer, just want to make it clear that you understand if the offer was made

no, I clearly do not agree. Are you playing a silly game?

 

[Correll]

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

Was there a similar offer written into 1441 regarding the installation of a democracy in Iraq as a test for SH’s compliance in order to avoid war?

Don't know, don't care. Seems irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.


And they won.

What did the warmonger’s win exactly if the following is true?

IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that.

I don’t recall losing a debate to war supporters when W said he would not start a war if SH was disarmed. He said it often and in the State of the Union which was not an “off the cuff” remark to my ears.

That meant your Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer and Dick Cheney’s “fuck the UN - invade Iraq to install democracy argument did not win as you claim as a matter of official US policy.

Thats because W’s Secretary of State informed me as early as December 2002 that Iraq was cooperating with inspectors and war was not

Here is factual backup;

Colin Powell's remarks on ABC's This Week with George Stephanoplous: war is not “inevitable” DECEMBER 2002

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, that mobilization is occurring in Iraq right now, or in the region around Iraq. But at the same time, Iraq seems to be cooperating with the inspectors. I know your views on the Iraqi declaration, but aside from that, do you have any other evidence that Iraq is not complying with the UN resolution?​

​

Interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos​

​

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the declaration is certainly noncompliant. There is no question about it. I don't think anybody is defending that declaration.​

​

They have been cooperating with the inspectors and we'll see if that cooperation continues. There has been some resistance in recent days to some of the things the inspectors are looking for, and we are providing more information and intelligence to the inspectors to cue their visits and we'll see whether that attitude of cooperation continues.​

​

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And if it does, war is not inevitable?​

​

SECRETARY POWELL: We've never said that war is inevitable. The President has always said that he is interested in a peaceful solution. But at the same time, if Iraq does not cooperate or if we find reason to believe that they do have weapons of mass destruction that they have not identified and turned over to the international community, then the President has all of his options available to him. And he has the option of also going back to the United Nations or acting unilaterally with likeminded nations.​

So in the Fall of 2002 the matter of US policy of removing SH from power was not won by the proponents.

But official US policy to exhaust all peaceful means before invading a Muslim nation was not what we got according to you.

IMO, by the time of those "offers" Bush was just going though the motions.

YES you warmongers won your war, But you never won the debate. Going through the motions indeed.

LOL!!! Is that your point? Is that what this was all about?

Sematic nonsense.