Did you Support War in Iraq??

[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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

 

[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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

Much better.

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you have no respect for your own words, why should I?

Did you write this back in May?

“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“

What is “an argument for war”?

When you are choosing to support or oppose or remain indifferent to a Commander in Chief and President who is making a case to start a war of aggression do you require the arguments being presented to ‘justify’ the potential loss of life that was about to commence?

Why did you revise nation building in IRAQ down from an argument for war to a goal of the war?

 

[surada]

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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

Much better.

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. What a vicious lie.

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

Iraq was for Israel and Clean Break Strategy. Look at the dual citizen signatories in the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton.

 

[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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

Much better.

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. What a vicious lie.

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

Iraq was for Israel and Clean Break Strategy. Look at the dual citizen signatories in the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton.

Do you understand that wars spread?

 

[surada]

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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

Much better.

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. What a vicious lie.

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

Iraq was for Israel and Clean Break Strategy. Look at the dual citizen signatories in the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton.

Do you understand that wars spread?

You mean from Afghanistan? The Taliban stick to their turf. No war was spreading to Iraq.. The invasion was part of Israel's plan.. in fact first on their list in Clean Break Strategy.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

 

[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.

Nation Building to create an alternative model, as a counter to Islamic Fundamentalism, in the contest of ideas, was a GOAL that I found convincing.

So what is the difference between “an argument for war” and a “goal” of a war of aggression that we are choosing to start against a non-aggressive nation?

I always understood the goal of a just war (other than mitigating the results if genocide) is to destroy the enemy who is actively attempting to destroy or conquer you.

Much better.

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. What a vicious lie.

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.

Iraq was for Israel and Clean Break Strategy. Look at the dual citizen signatories in the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton.

Do you understand that wars spread?

You mean from Afghanistan? The Taliban stick to their turf. No war was spreading to Iraq.. The invasion was part of Israel's plan.. in fact first on their list in Clean Break Strategy.

Nope. I do not mean from Afghanistan.

Do you understand that wars spread? Yes or no.

 

[surada]

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

One of the shittier more shameful episodes in US foreign policy history.. and all for damned Bibi and the Likkud.

 

[Correll]

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror. The terrorists were and still are, actively trying to destroy or conquer us.

The dictatorship and the people of Iraq were not combatants or associated with the terrorists in the War on Terror. So why did you support terrorizing them with Blitzkrieg Shock and AWE starting on March 19 2003?

Because there was a number of Just and Legal Justifications for the War and if successful, it would have been a possible path to victory in the War on Terror,


or, serve national interests and make the world a better place overall.


AND, the likely alternative was Saddam rearming and continuing to look for ways to "poke the bear" or increase his power and status in the Arab world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror.

Then why was that not the argument for invading Iraq from the White House?

Why did they present the nation building argument for war at the time? What was five months of peaceful inspections after 1441 all about? If SH’s Iraq was an ally of OBL and al Qaeda and was attempting to destroy and conquer us why did W Ask Congress for a specific authority to maybe - maybe not invade Iraq depending on what SH did about inspections?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because there was a number of Just and Legal Justifications for the War

But you cannot point to one that meets a universal standard. The Correll Standard does not count. So far you have mentioned ‘General War on Terror not requiring Iraq to be involved’ and Nation Building and Saddam acted evil in the past as your arguments for war. None justified the invasion of Iraq in any way .

 

[Correll]

The Iraq Invasion was part of a larger conflict, ie the War on Terror.

Then why was that not the argument for invading Iraq from the White House?

I don't know that it wasn't. I recall it being part of the discussion. Why do you care if it came "from the white house" or not?

Why did they present the nation building argument for war at the time?

Err, nation building in this context means, building Iraq into a democratic liberal state. Which is part of the larger goal of a competing idea in the War on Terror as a conflict of ideas.

What was five months of peaceful inspections after 1441 all about?

In my opinion, as I have stated before, going though the motions, a fool's errand.

If SH’s Iraq was an ally of OBL and al Qaeda

I said nothing of Saddam being an ally of OBL and al Quaeda. Do you really think I said that? Go back and read it all again.

and was attempting to destroy and conquer us

I said the terrorists were attempting to destroy and conquer us. Why did you change that?

why did W Ask Congress for a specific authority to maybe - maybe not invade Iraq depending on what SH did about inspections?

This question is not applicable because is was based on a completely incorrect IF/Then conclusion.

 

[Correll]

Because there was a number of Just and Legal Justifications for the War

But you cannot point to one that meets a universal standard....

Sure I can. They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sure I can. They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.

That does not legally or morally justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It may to you but you are a Christian warmonger. We are looking for a more universally accepted justification for starting a war in a country that is at peace.

Bush did not cite that to justify war. He gave SH a final opportunity to comply and SH peacefully and appropriately complied with 1441 and the inspectors.

Colin Powell said in December 2002 that SH was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.


If war was not inevitable because SH was cooperating in 2002 How cab war be necessary three months later when Iraqis cooperation continued to improve the national Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe was started on March 19 2003.


Your argument makes no sense when it is combined with the reality of the post 1441 world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't know that it wasn't.

It wasn’t. W did not want or think it was necessary to invade Iraq without the UK. Tony Blair could not go along without first giving SH and UN inspections one last try. No war if inspections resumed and SH cooperated.

That is reality. That is a fact. 1441 was acceptance that SH could stay in power if his disarmament obligations to the UNSC were met.


You are wrong to cite justification for war as Iraq’s failure to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war when the only authority that maintained the terms of that ceasefire were engaged in legitimate inspections when W forced them to cease so he could start the war. W drafted, Submitted and voted in favor of 1141 in November 2002.

Do you think 1441 and inspections did not happen?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This question is not applicable because is was based on a completely incorrect IF/Then conclusion.

Why did W seek a specific AUMF for invading Iraq when you say Iraq was part of the war on terror. W already had an AUMF to fight the war on terror.

 

[Correll]

Sure I can. They failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire from the previous war.

That does not legally or morally justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003....

Sure it does.

Peace treaties or agreements are serious shit. They are one of the few ways to end a war. YOu undermine them, by not enforcing them and you reduce the ways to end a war early, instead of fighting to the bitter end.

 

[Correll]

I don't know that it wasn't.

It wasn’t. W did not want ....?...

So, you claim. You have not been very credible at times. ANd the way you cut everything? Not encouraging.

 

[Correll]

This question is not applicable because is was based on a completely incorrect IF/Then conclusion.

Why did W seek a specific AUMF for invading Iraq when you say Iraq was part of the war on terror. W already had an AUMF to fight the war on terror.

I did not say that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

I said that the INVASION of Iraq, was part of the war on terror.