You must be on artificial life support, because clearly you are too stupid for even your autonomic bodily functions to be working. I’ve already explained the answer to both of these up thread. I’d tell you to scroll up and try reading them for comprehension this time, but it would be a futile request. You don’t seem to realize you CAN scroll up, but even if you did you wouldn’t understand it any better on the second reading than you did on the first.
What was the US Stance, XT?
What can you cite that establishes with any basis in fact that the decision to invade was made before the before or soon after 1441 was passed. I’d love to see evidence if that.
Is this why you initially supported the offensive invasion in March 2003?
Why aren’t you answering my question about the US Attorney? Are you scared to?
Still to you XT.
If that is why you originally supported killing and wounding people in Iraq, why did you think Saddam was not a threat to the oil in the region shortly after the US killing and maiming had begun?
What made you change your mind so quickly about Iraq’s threat to the regions oil, just when the killing and maiming got started?
Did you not know that starting a war to protect the region’s oil would get innocent people killed for your concern?
I’ll get more into your diversion efforts when I get the time. But your question is quite broad so is it safe to stick your Al Capone version? If so is it your scenario that Capone is suspected of violating ALL Federal laws equally?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
What was the US Stance, XT?
[/QUOTE]
Regime change.
Cost to benefits assessment. I thought (and still think now) that Saddam was a threat to at least his portion of the oil, if not to the oil in other neighboring countries, but that the cost to benefits of kicking him out of power was too high, since it became clear early on that our ‘plan’ for the invasion and post-invasion was deeply, fatally flawed, and that it was doubtful that most Iraqis were all that keen on having us kick Saddam et al out in any case. Plus, it was equally clear early on that Iraq was a powder keg of explosively hostile factions that were being contained, barely, by Saddam and his merry minions, and that our best bet would have been simply to let things ride…eventually Saddam would either have shuffled off this mortal coil on his own, or Arab Spring would have come early to Iraq. Hindsight, sadly, is always 20/20 and by the time I came to this realization we were already stuck deeply into Iraq. Not that my small support was a critical factor, but it’s not one of my proudest moments that I ever supported that fucked up war.
Of course. Innocent people were already dying in Iraq, however, regardless of what we did, and I felt, erroneously, that once Saddam was out (something I thought would be fairly simple, and in fact wasn’t that much of a trial initially) that it would give the Iraqi people the freedom to put in their own government and improve their lives and their future. Thus, my flawed logic went, in the medium or long term it would be worth the short term pain of regime change. Also, my thought was that eventually the regime would come crumbling down regardless, and in doing so many, many innocent people (along with the guilty) would die as well, so this seemed preferable (think Libya or Syria today, though obviously that hadn’t happened when this was all going down).
I was wrong, and I’ve freely admitted that (though you keep harping on it), and I was ignorant as well, especially of the sectarian hostile factions simmering under the surface. I didn’t know a lot about Iraq or the Iraqi people before the invasion, so thought of them as one people, being oppressed under the thumb of Saddam and the Baathists and who would be happy being freed of that yoke.
I am gratified that you actually read AND seemed to comprehend something I wrote, however, and actually followed up with a coherent query.
It’s a classic obfuscation technique to pretend not to understand the question. I’ve asked it eight times in the last two days; if you’re capable of browsing my posts from 2007, you are surely capable of reading one of my posts on the previous page.
Go back, read my original question, and provide a responsive answer. There’s no clarification needed at all.
Regime Change?
The US stance was not regime change by ground invasion and occupation. Regime change was to be done by supporting Kurds and Iraqis willing to do it. My understanding is that regime change without ground troops was not viable because the majority Shiites had close ties to Iran and would have been the facilitators to regime change with US support. We really wanted no such thing as Shiites taking over Iraq.
Bush was not authorized by the AUMF to use military force just to do regime change. There was no UNSC Resolution authorizing regime change. You needed to pay more attention when you go off supporting offensive wars of aggression.
So you decided prior to the invasion that it was our business to determine a political outcome for the Iraqis. Why didn’t you consider to allow Iraqis the right to self determination.
What gave you the right to decide to change their regime? And you couldn’t figure out it was going to be a mess if we toppled the regime and send non-Islamic troops who were not trained to fix things back then. They were trained to break things.
I see why you are so confused by reality still today.
You should know that Military intervention and lethal force can be justified to save lives faced with genocide. There was no genocide occuring when Bush finally decided to invade after March 7 2003. There was peaceful unfettered inspections taking place inside Iraq. No genocide and no actionable intelligence advised of a threat to the region’s oil took place at the time of the invasion.
No there weren’t.
Back your delusion up. There was a question as to immediacy on older unresolved issues but prior to the invasion the Iraqi Government was clearly defined as cooperating proactively. That is as unfettered. And cooperation on access to sites was early and immediate. Only a Bush lover, even a closet Bush lover would repeat Bush 's biggest lie. That Iraq did not cooperate.
Are you open or closet Smurfy?
And now we have come full circle. Give it up, Drunky Smurf…it’s already been explained to him by multiple posters why he’s wrong. Basically, he doesn’t understand the definition of ‘unfettered’ and can’t read plain English. Since he can’t comprehend what anyone writes, including Blix, he won’t get it no matter how hard you pound your forehead against his cluelessness and stubborn stupidity.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
The US stance was not regime change by ground invasion and occupation. Regime change was to be done by supporting Kurds and Iraqis willing to do it. My understanding is that regime change without ground troops was not viable because the majority Shiites had close ties to Iran and would have been the facilitators to regime change with US support. We really wanted no such thing as Shiites taking over Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly you weren’t keeping up with current events, you clueless fuck. We DID do regime change by ‘ground invasion and occupation’. It was in all the papers. And clearly (to anyone with a clue) this was exactly what our policy was from the signing of the AUMF onward. That’s why we were moving forces into the area. One way or the other, Saddam and his merry men were gone.
Gods you are stupid. Clearly he WAS so authorized, since, you know, he not only built up the forces in the area but fucking invaded Iraq and tossed Saddam and the Baathists out of power. I never said there was a UN resolution to do this…that’s YOUR fantasy that we somehow needed it. Clearly, again, we didn’t because WE FUCKING INVADED ANYWAY WITHOUT IT YOU STUPID FUCK! All that was needed, as Human Action pointed out earlier, was are own internal authorization, which Bush got from Congress.
They couldn’t exercise self determination with Saddam and the Baathists firmly having their feet on the populaces throat, obviously. IMHO at the time, Saddam et al had to go, both for the Iraqi people and general regional security.
You are confusing me with someone who actually had any sort of power to make any sort of decision about any of this at all. What gave the US the right for regime change? Obviously we had the power to do so, and that’s all the ‘right’ that was or has been historically needed. I don’t think it was wise, in retrospect…in fact I’ve said repeatedly it was a major fuck up…but there is no ‘right’ in the real world. What gave us the ‘right’ to intervene in Libya? What is giving us the ‘right’ to intervene in Syria? What gave us the ‘right’ to invade Afghanistan, or assist the Europeans in Bosnia? What gave THEM the ‘right’ to interfere in Bosnia? Simple…they and we had the power to do so. Sadly, we didn’t have the wisdom to restrain ourselves, but there is no such thing as ‘right’.
No, you really don’t, because you are a witless worm and clueless punch bunny who can neither grasp the events that actually happened back then OR understand either my posts or anyone else for that matter. You are a functionally brain dead asshole who basically has the understanding and IQ of pocket lint…particularly STUPID pocket lint.
So, you feel that Obama was wrong to intervene in Libya and now Syria as well? The only war you feel that was justified in the last 200+ years involving the US was our part in the European theater of World War II (presumably the Japanese part wasn’t justified since no genocide was occurring)?
No, don’t answer that. Your answer would be as worthless as anything else that you spout out. Hell, you probably don’t even understand what I wrote. It’s like everything that anyone writes is being badly translated through babblefish to chipmunk, and then read backwards in the language of pocket lint before reaching the 2-3 synapses still functional in whatever it is you call a ‘brain’…
Why was the invasion of Iraq not legal T&D
Here is a helpful link to where you posted this question in a thread that’s been dead for over 10 years now…
Maybe Tom will answer you here instead. 
Why is the US Attorney question hard NFbW
It was explained to XT by multiple posters why XT is not only wrong but lying. Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively starting in February 2003 and Blix said several times that cooperation on access had been provided early on with few problems.
The other poster was Tony Sinclair who set XT right and XT wilted away dumbfounded that someone knows more than he.
Proactive cooperation is as unfettered as inspections needed to get - there was no timeframe to reach that point.
Keep swallowing Bush’s biggest lie dudes. I here the Bush library is hiring some PR drones. You have swallowed enough to qualify - that is for sure.
Can you give me a link and some quotes showing multiple posters saying not only that I was wrong on this subject but lying as well? Thanks in advance (I’m not holding my breath for that link)
To those who think Lil Dubby needed an AUMF to start building up troops to surround Iraq must think Lil Dubby didn’t know that Pops made a helluva precedent set up for Jr.
“President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months in response to Iraq’s August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait. President Bush said that as Commander-in-chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress.”
Why could it not been like father like son?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Why could it not been like father like son?
[/QUOTE]
Because, moron, it wasn’t. This is all in the past, and you act as if it’s still in doubt. It already HAPPENED YOU IDIOT SO WE KNOW HOW IT PLAYED OUT!! I realize that you weren’t following along and this is all new to you, but the rest of us can actually grasp history. The AUMF was passed and signed in Sept of 2001. The Iraq War Resolution was enacted in October of 2002, and we began sending in troops (special forces to start) in late 2002 and early 2003, culminating in the invasion in March of that year. See the progression there? AUMF which gave Bush pretty much a blank check:
The Iraq War Resolution further:
At what date, exactly, do you claim you stopped being fooled by W?
Because it sounds like it was March 19, 2003.